Runaway CPU investigation for perl: busy poll at perf_ctx_enable

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Codex suba

[truncated 3140 bytes]

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem
Fixer reported a likely busy-poll loop for `munin-node`, but the evidence does not establish a script-level CPU loop. The captured `pselect6` calls timed out after about 1.8 and 2 seconds; the process was sleeping, and the hot-path symbol was in the kernel. The entrypoint delegates to `Munin::Node::Server->run`, whose accept loop is inherited from `Net::Server::Fork`.

## Evidence Confidence
**inferred** — source inspection found no busy loop in the node event path, and the captured waits look blocking rather than tight polling. The inherited `Net::Server::Fork` loop remains outside this source tree. Do not present this as a confirmed Munin bug or propose a source patch without stronger evidence.

## Proposed Subject
No patch planned. Diagnose this as an unconfirmed likely false positive, pending evidence that ties CPU consumption to Munin code or its inherited server loop.

## Patch Plan
- Make no source changes; no prior Fixer patch is present to improve or replace.
- The entrypoint at `script/munin-node:88` delegates to the server; connection reads block in `lib/Munin/Node/Server.pm:397`, and plugin-output reads use blocking `select` in `lib/Munin/Node/OS.pm:81`.
- `CONTRIBUTING.md` points to `HACKING.pod` for style. That guide says bug-fix patches target `stable-2.0`; absent contrary contribution guidance, use that base if a fix is later supported. No event-loop helper requiring a patch was identified.
- If further evidence implicates a loop, first inspect the installed `Net::Server::Fork` implementation; avoid changing the Perl runtime absent proof of a runtime defect. No awkward control flow is proposed.

## Risks
Changing Munin behavior based on these samples could mask the real source of CPU use. The available trace does not independently demonstrate a user-visible failure, and the inherited event loop has not been inspected.

## Validation
- From the workspace root, try `make` first, then `make check` only if that target exists; this Makefile exposes `build` and `test`, but no `check` target. If build prerequisites or generated files are missing, record the exact command and failure, then use the narrowest relevant Perl compile/test available from a clean checkout.
- Bounded reproduction attempt: if the original process is available, capture `ps` state and a short `strace -p <pid> -e pselect6,select,poll,ppoll -tt -T` sample to see whether waits block or spin. The evidence bundle alone cannot reproduce the CPU signal, so do not claim reproduction.
- No tests or builds were run in this planning pass.

## Patch Pass

Subject: Diagnose unconfirmed munin-node busy-poll report

## Commit Message
No source patch. The available evidence does not establish a busy loop in Munin, so changing its event handling would be speculative.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
Fixer’s evidence shows `munin-node` sleeping in `pselect6`, with calls timing out after about 1.8 and 2 seconds; `/proc` also reports the process as sleeping. Source inspection found the entrypoint delegates to `Munin::Node::Server->run`, while the inspected connection and plugin-output reads block. This does not identify a Munin code path causing a tight loop, and the inherited `Net::Server::Fork` event loop remains uninspected. No source change is justified; the expected effect of this report is to avoid an unsupported fix and direct follow-up toward collecting a live process trace tied to the event loop.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` — failed because `Module::Build` is unavailable: `Can't locate Module/Build.pm`; this prevents the project build from starting.
- `make check` — failed because the Makefile has no `check` target.
- `perl -Ilib -c script/munin-node` — failed because the script’s `-T` taint mode must also be enabled on the command line. `perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node` then passed with `syntax OK`.
- Independent reproduction attempt: `ps -p 3947104 -o pid,stat,pcpu,etime,wchan,args` found no process with the captured PID, so a live trace comparison was not possible. The workspace has no source changes.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: ok

The generated response is a no-patch diagnosis, consistent with the indirect evidence and the prior inspection. The workspace has no source diff, `Evidence Confidence` is `inferred`, and the validation results and live-process reproduction blocker are reported. The separate Debian unit concern is unchanged from the original snapshot and is outside this proposal, so it is not a finding on this patch.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Codex suba

[truncated 3140 bytes]

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem
Fixer reported a likely busy-poll loop for `munin-node`, but the evidence does not establish a script-level CPU loop. The captured `pselect6` calls timed out after about 1.8 and 2 seconds; the process was sleeping, and the hot-path symbol was in the kernel. The entrypoint delegates to `Munin::Node::Server->run`, whose accept loop is inherited from `Net::Server::Fork`.

## Evidence Confidence
**inferred** — source inspection found no busy loop in the node event path, and the captured waits look blocking rather than tight polling. The inherited `Net::Server::Fork` loop remains outside this source tree. Do not present this as a confirmed Munin bug or propose a source patch without stronger evidence.

## Proposed Subject
No patch planned. Diagnose this as an unconfirmed likely false positive, pending evidence that ties CPU consumption to Munin code or its inherited server loop.

## Patch Plan
- Make no source changes; no prior Fixer patch is present to improve or replace.
- The entrypoint at `script/munin-node:88` delegates to the server; connection reads block in `lib/Munin/Node/Server.pm:397`, and plugin-output reads use blocking `select` in `lib/Munin/Node/OS.pm:81`.
- `CONTRIBUTING.md` points to `HACKING.pod` for style. That guide says bug-fix patches target `stable-2.0`; absent contrary contribution guidance, use that base if a fix is later supported. No event-loop helper requiring a patch was identified.
- If further evidence implicates a loop, first inspect the installed `Net::Server::Fork` implementation; avoid changing the Perl runtime absent proof of a runtime defect. No awkward control flow is proposed.

## Risks
Changing Munin behavior based on these samples could mask the real source of CPU use. The available trace does not independently demonstrate a user-visible failure, and the inherited event loop has not been inspected.

## Validation
- From the workspace root, try `make` first, then `make check` only if that target exists; this Makefile exposes `build` and `test`, but no `check` target. If build prerequisites or generated files are missing, record the exact command and failure, then use the narrowest relevant Perl compile/test available from a clean checkout.
- Bounded reproduction attempt: if the original process is available, capture `ps` state and a short `strace -p <pid> -e pselect6,select,poll,ppoll -tt -T` sample to see whether waits block or spin. The evidence bundle alone cannot reproduce the CPU signal, so do not claim reproduction.
- No tests or builds were run in this planning pass.

## Patch Pass

Subject: Diagnose unconfirmed munin-node busy-poll report

## Commit Message
No source patch. The available evidence does not establish a busy loop in Munin, so changing its event handling would be speculative.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
Fixer’s evidence shows `munin-node` sleeping in `pselect6`, with calls timing out after about 1.8 and 2 seconds; `/proc` also reports the process as sleeping. Source inspection found the entrypoint delegates to `Munin::Node::Server->run`, while the inspected connection and plugin-output reads block. This does not identify a Munin code path causing a tight loop, and the inherited `Net::Server::Fork` event loop remains uninspected. No source change is justified; the expected effect of this report is to avoid an unsupported fix and direct follow-up toward collecting a live process trace tied to the event loop.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` — failed because `Module::Build` is unavailable: `Can't locate Module/Build.pm`; this prevents the project build from starting.
- `make check` — failed because the Makefile has no `check` target.
- `perl -Ilib -c script/munin-node` — failed because the script’s `-T` taint mode must also be enabled on the command line. `perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node` then passed with `syntax OK`.
- Independent reproduction attempt: `ps -p 3947104 -o pid,stat,pcpu,etime,wchan,args` found no process with the captured PID, so a live trace comparison was not possible. The workspace has no source changes.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: ok

The generated response is a no-patch diagnosis, consistent with the indirect evidence and the prior inspection. The workspace has no source diff, `Evidence Confidence` is `inferred`, and the validation results and live-process reproduction blocker are reported. The separate Debian unit concern is unchanged from the original snapshot and is outside this proposal, so it is not a finding on this patch.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

Response

## Plan Pass



## Workflow Note

{"type":"item.completed","item":{"id":"item_22","type":"reasoning","text":"**Checking stable-2.0 guidance**"}}
{"type":"error","message":"Reconnecting... 1/5 (stream disconnected before completion: Upstream websocket closed before response.completed: Upstream websocket receive failed)"}
{"type":"error","message":"Reconnecting... 2/5 (unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: c845f42a-0c06-463e-8e0a-adb8abecf6bb)"}
{"type":"error","message":"Reconnecting... 3/5 (unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: 6f430dc6-d160-43b6-99cc-07ae113754ae)"}
{"type":"error","message":"Reconnecting... 4/5 (unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: cbb86d26-8c22-4f6a-8461-88223b24e025)"}
{"type":"error","message":"Reconnecting... 5/5 (unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: bfc368f9-f000-4b33-a698-396bed9ad0f1)"}
{"type":"error","message":"unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: cd547fa6-0767-4e5b-a39e-bafcf7af824b"}
{"type":"turn.failed","error":{"message":"unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: cd547fa6-0767-4e5b-a39e-bafcf7af824b"}}

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

Response

## Plan Pass



## Workflow Note

{"type":"item.completed","item":{"id":"item_17","type":"reasoning","text":"**Reporting evidence limits**"}}
{"type":"error","message":"Reconnecting... 1/5 (stream disconnected before completion: Upstream websocket closed before response.completed: Upstream websocket receive failed)"}
{"type":"error","message":"Reconnecting... 2/5 (unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: dabc7ef2-41ee-47f1-a5a8-b2a7c63902db)"}
{"type":"error","message":"Reconnecting... 3/5 (unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: a899227d-d10b-4d01-88f6-2a6abe5c0e55)"}
{"type":"error","message":"Reconnecting... 4/5 (unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: b2b1758f-ef4a-4fda-9a6c-597cb30756a8)"}
{"type":"error","message":"Reconnecting... 5/5 (unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: ca9ba61f-9dff-4a4a-856c-4ad85b8eabb4)"}
{"type":"error","message":"unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: 32bcc4ff-0ed2-4aca-b62c-46df8a890730"}
{"type":"turn.failed","error":{"message":"unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: 32bcc4ff-0ed2-4aca-b62c-46df8a890730"}}

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Codex suba

[truncated 3140 bytes]

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem
Fixer labels `munin-node` as a likely busy-poll loop, but the evidence does not establish a Munin source bug. The captured `pselect6` calls wait for 1.8–2 seconds and time out; the kernel symbol attribution alone does not show sustained CPU consumption. The script entrypoint delegates its server loop to `Net::Server::Fork`, so runtime investigation is secondary unless further evidence points there.

## Evidence Confidence
**inferred** — no-patch diagnosis plan. The evidence bundle contains a profiler/trace signal, not an independently reproduced failure. Source inspection found blocking reads in `Munin::Node::Server`: the request loop exits on EOF, and blank commands return to a blocking read. The independent scout found no evident tight loop in those paths.

## Proposed Subject
No source patch proposed; first verify whether `munin-node` is actually consuming sustained CPU.

## Patch Plan
- Make no code changes unless new evidence ties sustained CPU use to Munin source behavior.
- If the signal recurs, inspect the script/application entrypoint and `Munin::Node::Server` before investigating Perl or kernel runtime behavior.
- Follow `CONTRIBUTING.md` and `HACKING.pod` for Perl style and tests. The server delegates its accept loop to `Net::Server::Fork`; Munin’s request loop uses `_net_read` and `do_with_timeout`. No relevant local helper suggests a source fix at this stage.
- No prior Fixer patch needs replacement or improvement. `HACKING.pod` says bug-fix patches should target `stable-2.0`; the prepared snapshot is on `master` with no remote configured.

## Risks
A speculative loop change could alter normal connection handling without addressing the reported signal. Avoid attributing the kernel profile to Perl or Munin absent evidence linking CPU use to their code.

## Validation
- Try project-level `make` from the workspace root, followed by `make check` if that target exists; the Makefile exposes `test`, not `check`, and the HACKING test instructions also describe `perl Build.PL` and `./Build test`.
- Attempt a bounded, independent check only if the reported process is still available: sample its CPU with `ps`, then capture a short `strace` to see whether `pselect6` continues timing out. Do not claim reproduction from the current bundle.
- No focused compile or smoke test is planned absent a source change.

## Patch Pass

Subject: Diagnose munin-node poll signal without speculative patch

## Commit Message
No source changes. The available trace does not establish a Munin busy loop: it shows `pselect6` waiting about 1.8–2 seconds before timing out, while the process was sleeping in a poll wait. The sampled kernel symbol does not identify a Munin code path.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
Fixer recorded a likely busy-poll signal for `munin-node`, including repeated `pselect6` timeouts and a sleeping process whose wait channel was `poll_schedule_timeout`. Inspection found the script delegates its server loop to `Net::Server::Fork`; Munin’s request loop blocks reading input and exits when the read returns EOF. This evidence does not establish a source-level cause, so I made no source change. The reported PID was no longer available for an independent check, and the expected effect of this diagnosis is to avoid a speculative change until sustained CPU use is confirmed.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` from the workspace root failed because `Module::Build` is missing: `Can't locate Module/Build.pm in @INC`.
- `make check` failed because the Makefile has no `check` target.
- Narrower syntax checks passed: `PERL5LIB=lib:common/lib perl -T -c script/munin-node` and `PERL5LIB=lib:common/lib perl -c lib/Munin/Node/Server.pm`.
- Independent reproduction was blocked: `ps -p 3947104 ...` found no process, and `/proc/3947104/status` was unavailable. No reproduction is claimed.
- No relevant Munin helper indicates a source fix. `HACKING.pod` directs bug-fix patches to `stable-2.0`; no patch is proposed.

## Review Pass 1



## Workflow Note

{"type":"item.completed","item":{"id":"item_9","type":"reasoning","text":"**Reviewing diagnostic evidence**"}}
{"type":"error","message":"Reconnecting... 1/5 (stream disconnected before completion: Upstream websocket closed before response.completed: Upstream websocket receive failed)"}
{"type":"error","message":"Reconnecting... 2/5 (unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: 7b02dd44-cfdd-4c96-928c-a394a41bfe78)"}
{"type":"error","message":"Reconnecting... 3/5 (unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: 07e78a1b-9df4-4e9d-a85f-d8eb64ac560a)"}
{"type":"error","message":"Reconnecting... 4/5 (unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: 647a54c4-de76-400a-88b6-2f4d1bb75f99)"}
{"type":"error","message":"Reconnecting... 5/5 (unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: c82b5d46-1739-4a83-8cd4-d7d3241d53ca)"}
{"type":"error","message":"unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: 90cb4276-988a-4372-b8db-da3954c4cc0c"}
{"type":"turn.failed","error":{"message":"unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: 90cb4276-988a-4372-b8db-da3954c4cc0c"}}

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Codex suba

[truncated 3140 bytes]

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem
Fixer reports likely busy polling in `munin-node`, but the supplied trace does not establish it: the captured `pselect6` calls time out after roughly 1.8–2 seconds, and the process is reported sleeping. The source entrypoint is `script/munin-node`; `Munin::Node::Server` delegates its outer listener loop to `Net::Server::Fork`.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

The profiler signal is not tied to Munin code, and the captured syscalls show timed waits rather than a demonstrated tight loop. Independent source inspection found a possible child-reaping issue in `Munin::Node::OS::run_as_child` after timeout, but it is inferred from code, not reproduced, and does not explain this CPU report.

## Proposed Subject
No source patch; report that the available evidence is insufficient to identify a Munin defect.

## Patch Plan
- Do not change the Perl runtime, event loop, or child cleanup based on this evidence.
- Collect contemporaneous CPU usage and a bounded trace for the same process, then correlate sustained CPU with a language-level stack or request.
- If a Munin defect is demonstrated, inspect the entrypoint and callers before changing code. Follow existing helpers such as `Munin::Common::Timeout::do_with_timeout`, `Munin::Node::OS::run_as_child`, `_read_from_child`, and `reap_child_group` where relevant.
- No prior Fixer patch needs replacement; the workspace is clean. `HACKING.pod` directs bug fixes to `stable-2.0`, so use that base if subsequent evidence supports a bug fix. No control-flow change is proposed.

## Risks
A speculative event-loop or child-lifecycle change could affect normal server waiting or plugin cleanup without addressing the reported signal. Keep any eventual maintainer explanation focused on the demonstrated failure; the possible unreaped-child path is a separate, unverified candidate.

## Validation
- First try project-level `make` from the workspace root. Check `make check` availability (`Makefile` has no `check` target; it documents `test`). If the build fails due to dependencies or generated files, record the exact command and reason, then run the narrowest reproducible check, such as `perl -Ilib -c script/munin-node`.
- For an independent, bounded reproduction attempt, inspect the same live process with `ps -p <pid> -o pid,stat,pcpu,etime,wchan,args` and capture `strace -tt -T -e pselect6 -p <pid>` for five seconds, if accessible. The provided excerpts alone cannot reproduce a busy loop; do not claim reproduction unless a check demonstrates sustained CPU and ties it to Munin code.

## Patch Pass

Subject: No patch: diagnose munin-node perf signal

## Commit Message
No source change. The available samples do not establish a Munin busy loop.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
Fixer reports `perf_ctx_enable` as 100% of sampled CPU, but the recorded stack is in the kernel’s `pselect6` wait path, `/proc` reports the process sleeping, and the captured `pselect6` calls time out after about 1.8–2 seconds. These signals suggest the busy-poll classification may reflect profiler attribution rather than a Munin loop, but they do not prove the cause. Source inspection found that `script/munin-node` starts `Munin::Node::Server`, whose listener loop is delegated to `Net::Server::Fork`; no source change was made because the evidence does not identify a defective Munin path. The expected effect is to avoid an unsupported upstream patch; identifying a defect requires a contemporaneous trace and CPU measurement for the same process.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` failed because `Module::Build` is unavailable: `Can't locate Module/Build.pm in @INC`; the failure occurred while running `Build.PL`.
- `make check` failed because the Makefile has no `check` target.
- `perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node` passed (`syntax OK`). The first attempt without `-T` failed because the script requires taint mode.
- Tried `ps -p 3947104 -o pid,stat,pcpu,etime,wchan,args`; no process entry was returned, so a live `strace` comparison could not be performed.
- No files changed. Contribution guidance says bug-fix patches target `stable-2.0`; no branch change was made because this diagnosis leaves no patch.

## Review Pass 1

That audit conflicts with the review: I read `patch-output.txt` and `evidence.json` at the specified paths. The workspace is clean, and the no-patch diagnosis is consistent with the evidence.

## Workflow Note

Review Pass 1 did not return a `RESULT: ok` or `RESULT: fix-needed` line.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Codex suba

[truncated 3140 bytes]

Response

## Plan Pass

The two source scouts reinforce the diagnosis: `munin-node` delegates its server loop to `Net::Server::Fork`, and Munin’s own child-pipe `select(..., undef)` is an intentional blocking wait, bounded by the configured timeout. Neither connects the captured samples to a busy loop. No source patch is warranted without further runtime evidence.

## Patch Pass

Subject: Diagnose munin-node CPU alert without source changes

## Commit Message
No source change. The collected profile and trace do not establish a Munin busy loop, so a speculative upstream code change would not be justified. The workspace is on `master`; `HACKING.pod` separately directs bug fixes to `stable-2.0`.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
Fixer’s profile attributes 100% of sampled hot-path time to the kernel symbol `perf_ctx_enable`. The accompanying `strace` shows `pselect6` timing out after about 1.8–2 seconds, and `/proc` reports the process sleeping in `poll_schedule_timeout`; this is not evidence of a tight poll loop. Source inspection found that `munin-node` delegates its server loop to `Net::Server::Fork`, while Munin’s child-pipe `select(..., undef)` is an intentional blocking wait. No source change was made because the evidence does not connect the kernel samples to a Munin defect. The expected effect is to avoid an unsupported fix until a language-level trace or reproducible workload identifies the cause.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` — failed because `Module::Build` is missing (`Can't locate Module/Build.pm`).
- `make check` — unavailable; Make reports `No rule to make target 'check'`.
- `perl -Ilib -c script/munin-node` — failed because the script requires taint mode on the command line.
- `perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node` — passed (`syntax OK`).
- Bounded repro check: `ps -p 3947104 -o pid,stat,pcpu,etime,wchan,args` found no process for the captured PID, so an independent runtime reproduction could not be run against it. `strace` and `timeout` are available, but starting the daemon here would use system configuration and could bind a service socket; no isolated test setup is provided.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: ok

The workspace contains no source diff, and the report appropriately classifies the evidence as `inferred`. Its diagnosis matches the captured timed `pselect6` waits and sleeping `/proc` state; it does not claim a reproduced busy loop. It also records the failed root build, unavailable `make check`, and successful taint-mode syntax check. The captured PID is gone, and the report explains why launching the daemon against system configuration was not a safe reproduction attempt.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Codex suba

[truncated 3140 bytes]

Response

## Plan Pass

The two source scouts reinforce the diagnosis: `munin-node` delegates its server loop to `Net::Server::Fork`, and Munin’s own child-pipe `select(..., undef)` is an intentional blocking wait, bounded by the configured timeout. Neither connects the captured samples to a busy loop. No source patch is warranted without further runtime evidence.

## Patch Pass

Subject: Diagnose munin-node CPU alert without source changes

## Commit Message
No source change. The collected profile and trace do not establish a Munin busy loop, so a speculative upstream code change would not be justified. The workspace is on `master`; `HACKING.pod` separately directs bug fixes to `stable-2.0`.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
Fixer’s profile attributes 100% of sampled hot-path time to the kernel symbol `perf_ctx_enable`. The accompanying `strace` shows `pselect6` timing out after about 1.8–2 seconds, and `/proc` reports the process sleeping in `poll_schedule_timeout`; this is not evidence of a tight poll loop. Source inspection found that `munin-node` delegates its server loop to `Net::Server::Fork`, while Munin’s child-pipe `select(..., undef)` is an intentional blocking wait. No source change was made because the evidence does not connect the kernel samples to a Munin defect. The expected effect is to avoid an unsupported fix until a language-level trace or reproducible workload identifies the cause.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` — failed because `Module::Build` is missing (`Can't locate Module/Build.pm`).
- `make check` — unavailable; Make reports `No rule to make target 'check'`.
- `perl -Ilib -c script/munin-node` — failed because the script requires taint mode on the command line.
- `perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node` — passed (`syntax OK`).
- Bounded repro check: `ps -p 3947104 -o pid,stat,pcpu,etime,wchan,args` found no process for the captured PID, so an independent runtime reproduction could not be run against it. `strace` and `timeout` are available, but starting the daemon here would use system configuration and could bind a service socket; no isolated test setup is provided.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: ok

The workspace contains no source diff, and the report appropriately classifies the evidence as `inferred`. Its diagnosis matches the captured timed `pselect6` waits and sleeping `/proc` state; it does not claim a reproduced busy loop. It also records the failed root build, unavailable `make check`, and successful taint-mode syntax check. The captured PID is gone, and the report explains why launching the daemon against system configuration was not a safe reproduction attempt.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Codex suba

[truncated 3140 bytes]

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem
- Fixer flags `/usr/sbin/munin-node` as a likely busy poll, but the captured calls are `pselect6` waits timing out after about 1.8–2 seconds. The process is reported sleeping, and the profile does not establish a Munin CPU loop.

## Evidence Confidence
- **inferred**
- This is a no-patch diagnosis: the evidence suggests normal listener waits, not a source defect. `script/munin-node` starts `Munin::Node::Server`; the server delegates its accept loop to `Net::Server::Fork`. No language-level trace ties the kernel profile to a faulty Munin loop.

## Proposed Subject
- No source patch proposed; report that the supplied evidence does not demonstrate runaway CPU in Munin.

## Patch Plan
- Make no edits unless independent evidence shows the node consumes CPU while supposedly waiting.
- No prior Fixer source patch was found to improve or replace; the workspace history contains only the Fixer baseline.
- Follow `CONTRIBUTING.md` and `HACKING.pod`: Perl strictness/warnings and local style apply. Node request I/O uses `_net_read`/`_net_write` in `lib/Munin/Node/Server.pm`; child I/O and process handling use `Munin::Node::OS` helpers. No Munin-owned listener-loop helper was found; the observed accept wait is delegated to `Net::Server::Fork`.
- No control-flow change is warranted. `HACKING.pod` directs bug-fix patches to `stable-2.0`; no upstream patch is planned here.

## Risks
- Changing the listener wait based only on syscall samples could harm normal accept behavior without addressing a demonstrated CPU problem.
- The profile’s kernel hot symbol and three timed waits are insufficient to attribute CPU use to Munin code.

## Validation
- Before any focused check, try the project-level `make` build and `make test` from the workspace root. `make check` is not defined in this checkout.
- For a bounded independent reproduction attempt, if the suspect process is available, sample it for six seconds with `strace -tt -e trace=pselect6 -p <PID>` and `ps -p <PID> -o pid,stat,pcpu,etime,wchan,args`. Seek sustained CPU growth during waits; timed-out waits with low CPU do not reproduce the complaint. Do not claim reproduction otherwise.
- If project-level validation is later needed, report exact command failures and reasons before falling back to a focused test. No validation commands were run in this planning-only pass.

## Patch Pass

Subject: Diagnose munin-node wait profile without a source patch

## Commit Message
The supplied profile does not establish a Munin busy loop. The trace and process state are consistent with the node waiting for connections, so no source change is proposed.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
Fixer observed three `pselect6` calls, each waiting about 1.8–2 seconds before timing out; `/proc` reported the process sleeping, and the wait channel was `poll_schedule_timeout`. `pselect6` is a kernel wait for file-descriptor activity, not by itself evidence of a busy loop. The profile’s `perf_ctx_enable` hot symbol does not tie CPU use to Munin code. In the source, `script/munin-node` starts `Munin::Node::Server`, which inherits its accept loop from `Net::Server::Fork`; request handling also waits for client input. The available evidence therefore suggests ordinary listener waits, not a Munin defect. Because it does not show faulty application logic, I made no source change; avoiding an unsupported listener change prevents altering normal connection handling.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` — failed because `Build.PL` could not find `Module::Build`.
- `make test` — failed for the same missing `Module::Build` dependency. `make check` is not defined by this checkout’s `Makefile`.
- `perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node` — passed (`syntax OK`).
- Independent reproduction attempt: `ps -p 3947104 -o pid,stat,pcpu,etime,wchan,args` found no process with the evidence PID, so the planned bounded `strace` comparison could not run. The failure was not independently reproduced.
- No relevant Munin-owned listener-loop helper was found; the accept loop is delegated to `Net::Server::Fork`. The workspace is on `master`; `HACKING.pod` says bug-fix patches target `stable-2.0`, but no patch is proposed.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: ok

The first pass is an appropriate no-patch diagnosis. Its `inferred` confidence matches the indirect profile and timed `pselect6` waits; validation reports the missing `Module::Build` blocker, syntax-check result, and unavailable process for independent reproduction. The workspace has no source diff.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Codex suba

[truncated 3140 bytes]

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem
- Fixer flags `/usr/sbin/munin-node` as a likely busy poll, but the captured calls are `pselect6` waits timing out after about 1.8–2 seconds. The process is reported sleeping, and the profile does not establish a Munin CPU loop.

## Evidence Confidence
- **inferred**
- This is a no-patch diagnosis: the evidence suggests normal listener waits, not a source defect. `script/munin-node` starts `Munin::Node::Server`; the server delegates its accept loop to `Net::Server::Fork`. No language-level trace ties the kernel profile to a faulty Munin loop.

## Proposed Subject
- No source patch proposed; report that the supplied evidence does not demonstrate runaway CPU in Munin.

## Patch Plan
- Make no edits unless independent evidence shows the node consumes CPU while supposedly waiting.
- No prior Fixer source patch was found to improve or replace; the workspace history contains only the Fixer baseline.
- Follow `CONTRIBUTING.md` and `HACKING.pod`: Perl strictness/warnings and local style apply. Node request I/O uses `_net_read`/`_net_write` in `lib/Munin/Node/Server.pm`; child I/O and process handling use `Munin::Node::OS` helpers. No Munin-owned listener-loop helper was found; the observed accept wait is delegated to `Net::Server::Fork`.
- No control-flow change is warranted. `HACKING.pod` directs bug-fix patches to `stable-2.0`; no upstream patch is planned here.

## Risks
- Changing the listener wait based only on syscall samples could harm normal accept behavior without addressing a demonstrated CPU problem.
- The profile’s kernel hot symbol and three timed waits are insufficient to attribute CPU use to Munin code.

## Validation
- Before any focused check, try the project-level `make` build and `make test` from the workspace root. `make check` is not defined in this checkout.
- For a bounded independent reproduction attempt, if the suspect process is available, sample it for six seconds with `strace -tt -e trace=pselect6 -p <PID>` and `ps -p <PID> -o pid,stat,pcpu,etime,wchan,args`. Seek sustained CPU growth during waits; timed-out waits with low CPU do not reproduce the complaint. Do not claim reproduction otherwise.
- If project-level validation is later needed, report exact command failures and reasons before falling back to a focused test. No validation commands were run in this planning-only pass.

## Patch Pass

Subject: Diagnose munin-node wait profile without a source patch

## Commit Message
The supplied profile does not establish a Munin busy loop. The trace and process state are consistent with the node waiting for connections, so no source change is proposed.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
Fixer observed three `pselect6` calls, each waiting about 1.8–2 seconds before timing out; `/proc` reported the process sleeping, and the wait channel was `poll_schedule_timeout`. `pselect6` is a kernel wait for file-descriptor activity, not by itself evidence of a busy loop. The profile’s `perf_ctx_enable` hot symbol does not tie CPU use to Munin code. In the source, `script/munin-node` starts `Munin::Node::Server`, which inherits its accept loop from `Net::Server::Fork`; request handling also waits for client input. The available evidence therefore suggests ordinary listener waits, not a Munin defect. Because it does not show faulty application logic, I made no source change; avoiding an unsupported listener change prevents altering normal connection handling.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` — failed because `Build.PL` could not find `Module::Build`.
- `make test` — failed for the same missing `Module::Build` dependency. `make check` is not defined by this checkout’s `Makefile`.
- `perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node` — passed (`syntax OK`).
- Independent reproduction attempt: `ps -p 3947104 -o pid,stat,pcpu,etime,wchan,args` found no process with the evidence PID, so the planned bounded `strace` comparison could not run. The failure was not independently reproduced.
- No relevant Munin-owned listener-loop helper was found; the accept loop is delegated to `Net::Server::Fork`. The workspace is on `master`; `HACKING.pod` says bug-fix patches target `stable-2.0`, but no patch is proposed.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: ok

The first pass is an appropriate no-patch diagnosis. Its `inferred` confidence matches the indirect profile and timed `pselect6` waits; validation reports the missing `Module::Build` blocker, syntax-check result, and unavailable process for independent reproduction. The workspace has no source diff.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Codex suba

[truncated 3140 bytes]

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem
Fixer’s profiler evidence flags `munin-node` as a possible busy-poll process, but the captured state says it was sleeping and shows `pselect6` calls timing out after roughly two seconds. The Perl script’s event loop must be investigated before blaming the Perl runtime.

## Evidence Confidence
**inferred** — the evidence shows a polling syscall, not a confirmed runaway loop. The source routes server startup through `Net::Server::Fork`; the independent source inspection found that its `IO::Select->can_read(2)` poll blocks, while Munin’s request reads also block. The reported PID may no longer exist, so the evidence does not establish a current failure. Plan a no-patch diagnosis unless new evidence identifies a script defect.

## Proposed Subject
No source patch planned; diagnose the profiler-only runaway-CPU report.

## Patch Plan
- Make no code changes unless the bounded reproduction reveals a Munin-side defect.
- Trace `script/munin-node` into `Munin::Node::Server` first; investigate Perl runtime behavior only if entrypoint evidence warrants it.
- Follow Munin’s upstream development branch, `master`, for any eventual upstream patch. `README.rst` names it as the default branch.
- Follow the Perl strictness, warnings, and file-local style guidance in `HACKING.pod`. The relevant poll helper is external `Net::Server::Fork` using `IO::Select`; no Munin-specific polling wrapper was found. No prior Fixer patch is present to replace or improve.

## Risks
Changing polling behavior without evidence could alter normal server responsiveness. The profiler attributes samples to kernel `perf_ctx_enable`, while the captured process is sleeping; neither establishes a script or runtime bug. No awkward control flow, including `goto`, is needed for this diagnosis.

## Validation
- From the workspace root, try `make` first, then `make check` if that target exists. If project-level validation fails due to missing dependencies or generated files, record the exact command and failure reason, then use the narrowest reproducible test or compile; `HACKING.pod` documents `perl Build.PL` followed by `./Build test`.
- As a bounded independent reproduction attempt, if PID `3947104` is still present on the affected host, run `timeout 15s strace -tt -T -e trace=pselect6 -p 3947104` and compare with `ps -p 3947104 -o pid,stat,pcpu,etime,wchan,args`. The PID may be stale; this check is observational and will not by itself prove a busy loop.

## Patch Pass

Subject: Diagnose munin-node profiler alert without source changes

## Commit Message
No source patch is justified: the profiler report suggests a busy poll, but its process-level evidence is consistent with `munin-node` blocking while waiting for input. Report the diagnosis and request a Perl-level trace or reproducible failure before proposing code changes.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
Fixer reported that 100% of sampled CPU passed through the kernel symbol `perf_ctx_enable`, but that is a share of profiler samples—not 100% process CPU. The captured `/proc` data shows `munin-node` sleeping at 0.9% CPU, and the `pselect6` calls timed out after about 1.8–2 seconds in `poll_schedule_timeout`. The script entrypoint delegates to `Munin::Node::Server` and the external `Net::Server::Fork` polling loop; the available evidence does not tie the samples to a faulty Munin code path. I made no source change because the signal does not establish a source defect. The diagnosis should prevent a speculative patch from changing normal idle-server behavior; a Perl-level stack or reproducible Munin-specific failure is needed to go further.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- The bounded reproduction attempt checked PID `3947104` with `ps -p 3947104 -o pid,stat,pcpu,etime,wchan,args`; the PID was absent, so `strace` could not be run against the reported process.
- `make` failed at `Build.PL:80` because `Module/Build.pm` is missing.
- `make check` failed because the workspace Makefile has no `check` target.
- The focused entrypoint check passed: `perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node`.
- The worktree remains unchanged. The relevant poll uses external `Net::Server::Fork`/`IO::Select`; no Munin-specific polling wrapper was found. Any eventual upstream patch should target `master`, as the project guidance specifies.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: ok

- No source diff is present; the inferred-confidence diagnosis appropriately avoids a speculative patch.
- The explanation connects the profiler samples to the sleeping `/proc` state and blocking `pselect6` calls without claiming a confirmed Munin defect.
- Validation records the `make` blocker (`Module/Build.pm` missing), absent `make check` target, successful taint-mode syntax check, and reproduction blocker (reported PID absent).
- Upstream guidance and local polling helper findings are noted; any eventual source patch should target `master`.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Codex suba

[truncated 3140 bytes]

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem
Fixer’s profiler evidence flags `munin-node` as a possible busy-poll process, but the captured state says it was sleeping and shows `pselect6` calls timing out after roughly two seconds. The Perl script’s event loop must be investigated before blaming the Perl runtime.

## Evidence Confidence
**inferred** — the evidence shows a polling syscall, not a confirmed runaway loop. The source routes server startup through `Net::Server::Fork`; the independent source inspection found that its `IO::Select->can_read(2)` poll blocks, while Munin’s request reads also block. The reported PID may no longer exist, so the evidence does not establish a current failure. Plan a no-patch diagnosis unless new evidence identifies a script defect.

## Proposed Subject
No source patch planned; diagnose the profiler-only runaway-CPU report.

## Patch Plan
- Make no code changes unless the bounded reproduction reveals a Munin-side defect.
- Trace `script/munin-node` into `Munin::Node::Server` first; investigate Perl runtime behavior only if entrypoint evidence warrants it.
- Follow Munin’s upstream development branch, `master`, for any eventual upstream patch. `README.rst` names it as the default branch.
- Follow the Perl strictness, warnings, and file-local style guidance in `HACKING.pod`. The relevant poll helper is external `Net::Server::Fork` using `IO::Select`; no Munin-specific polling wrapper was found. No prior Fixer patch is present to replace or improve.

## Risks
Changing polling behavior without evidence could alter normal server responsiveness. The profiler attributes samples to kernel `perf_ctx_enable`, while the captured process is sleeping; neither establishes a script or runtime bug. No awkward control flow, including `goto`, is needed for this diagnosis.

## Validation
- From the workspace root, try `make` first, then `make check` if that target exists. If project-level validation fails due to missing dependencies or generated files, record the exact command and failure reason, then use the narrowest reproducible test or compile; `HACKING.pod` documents `perl Build.PL` followed by `./Build test`.
- As a bounded independent reproduction attempt, if PID `3947104` is still present on the affected host, run `timeout 15s strace -tt -T -e trace=pselect6 -p 3947104` and compare with `ps -p 3947104 -o pid,stat,pcpu,etime,wchan,args`. The PID may be stale; this check is observational and will not by itself prove a busy loop.

## Patch Pass

Subject: Diagnose munin-node profiler alert without source changes

## Commit Message
No source patch is justified: the profiler report suggests a busy poll, but its process-level evidence is consistent with `munin-node` blocking while waiting for input. Report the diagnosis and request a Perl-level trace or reproducible failure before proposing code changes.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
Fixer reported that 100% of sampled CPU passed through the kernel symbol `perf_ctx_enable`, but that is a share of profiler samples—not 100% process CPU. The captured `/proc` data shows `munin-node` sleeping at 0.9% CPU, and the `pselect6` calls timed out after about 1.8–2 seconds in `poll_schedule_timeout`. The script entrypoint delegates to `Munin::Node::Server` and the external `Net::Server::Fork` polling loop; the available evidence does not tie the samples to a faulty Munin code path. I made no source change because the signal does not establish a source defect. The diagnosis should prevent a speculative patch from changing normal idle-server behavior; a Perl-level stack or reproducible Munin-specific failure is needed to go further.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- The bounded reproduction attempt checked PID `3947104` with `ps -p 3947104 -o pid,stat,pcpu,etime,wchan,args`; the PID was absent, so `strace` could not be run against the reported process.
- `make` failed at `Build.PL:80` because `Module/Build.pm` is missing.
- `make check` failed because the workspace Makefile has no `check` target.
- The focused entrypoint check passed: `perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node`.
- The worktree remains unchanged. The relevant poll uses external `Net::Server::Fork`/`IO::Select`; no Munin-specific polling wrapper was found. Any eventual upstream patch should target `master`, as the project guidance specifies.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: ok

- No source diff is present; the inferred-confidence diagnosis appropriately avoids a speculative patch.
- The explanation connects the profiler samples to the sleeping `/proc` state and blocking `pselect6` calls without claiming a confirmed Munin defect.
- Validation records the `make` blocker (`Module/Build.pm` missing), absent `make check` target, successful taint-mode syntax check, and reproduction blocker (reported PID absent).
- Upstream guidance and local polling helper findings are noted; any eventual source patch should target `master`.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Codex suba

[truncated 3140 bytes]

Response

## Plan Pass

Additional source inspection strengthens the no-patch diagnosis: the installed `Net::Server::Fork` calls `IO::Select->can_read(2)` while waiting for connections, which plausibly explains the roughly two-second `pselect6` timeouts. That is consistent with an idle listener, not proof of a busy loop. A bounded check against an idle foreground test node, followed by one local client connection, would help confirm the listening-socket behavior; it would not independently reproduce a Munin defect.

## Patch Pass

Subject: No patch: investigate Munin node polling signal

## Commit Message
No source change. The trace most likely reflects ordinary idle-listener polling: `Net::Server::Fork` calls `IO::Select->can_read(2)` before accepting connections, which plausibly explains the roughly two-second `pselect6` timeouts. The evidence does not establish a Munin defect, so changing the timeout or server loop would be speculative.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
Fixer observed `munin-node` in `pselect6` calls that timed out after about 1.8 and 2 seconds; `/proc` showed the process sleeping in `poll_schedule_timeout` with 0.9% CPU, while the profiler attributed samples to the kernel’s `perf_ctx_enable`. The likely explanation is the inherited `Net::Server::Fork` readiness wait, but the evidence does not confirm that descriptor 5 is the listening socket or map the syscall to a Munin source line. I made no code change because this signal does not demonstrate a busy loop or user-visible failure. The expected effect is to avoid a speculative upstream change until stronger evidence connects the behavior to a Munin defect.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` and `make test` both fail before building or testing: `Build.PL` cannot load `Module/Build.pm`.
- `perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node` passes (`syntax OK`).
- `make -n check` confirms there is no `check` target.
- Bounded reproduction attempt: `timeout 5s strace -tt -T -p 3947104 -e trace=pselect6,select,poll,ppoll` could not attach (`PTRACE_SEIZE: Operation not permitted`); the captured PID was also absent from this environment. The reported signal was not independently reproduced.
- No relevant local polling wrapper was found; the server inherits its accept loop from `Net::Server::Fork`. `HACKING.pod` directs bug-fix patches to `stable-2.0`; no branch change is applicable without a patch.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: ok

No source diff is present. The report appropriately classifies confidence as `inferred`, treats the two-second `pselect6` waits as likely idle-listener polling rather than a confirmed busy loop, and avoids a speculative patch. It also reports the build/test blocker, focused syntax check, and ptrace-blocked reproduction attempt without claiming reproduction.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Codex suba

[truncated 3140 bytes]

Response

## Plan Pass

Additional source inspection strengthens the no-patch diagnosis: the installed `Net::Server::Fork` calls `IO::Select->can_read(2)` while waiting for connections, which plausibly explains the roughly two-second `pselect6` timeouts. That is consistent with an idle listener, not proof of a busy loop. A bounded check against an idle foreground test node, followed by one local client connection, would help confirm the listening-socket behavior; it would not independently reproduce a Munin defect.

## Patch Pass

Subject: No patch: investigate Munin node polling signal

## Commit Message
No source change. The trace most likely reflects ordinary idle-listener polling: `Net::Server::Fork` calls `IO::Select->can_read(2)` before accepting connections, which plausibly explains the roughly two-second `pselect6` timeouts. The evidence does not establish a Munin defect, so changing the timeout or server loop would be speculative.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
Fixer observed `munin-node` in `pselect6` calls that timed out after about 1.8 and 2 seconds; `/proc` showed the process sleeping in `poll_schedule_timeout` with 0.9% CPU, while the profiler attributed samples to the kernel’s `perf_ctx_enable`. The likely explanation is the inherited `Net::Server::Fork` readiness wait, but the evidence does not confirm that descriptor 5 is the listening socket or map the syscall to a Munin source line. I made no code change because this signal does not demonstrate a busy loop or user-visible failure. The expected effect is to avoid a speculative upstream change until stronger evidence connects the behavior to a Munin defect.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` and `make test` both fail before building or testing: `Build.PL` cannot load `Module/Build.pm`.
- `perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node` passes (`syntax OK`).
- `make -n check` confirms there is no `check` target.
- Bounded reproduction attempt: `timeout 5s strace -tt -T -p 3947104 -e trace=pselect6,select,poll,ppoll` could not attach (`PTRACE_SEIZE: Operation not permitted`); the captured PID was also absent from this environment. The reported signal was not independently reproduced.
- No relevant local polling wrapper was found; the server inherits its accept loop from `Net::Server::Fork`. `HACKING.pod` directs bug-fix patches to `stable-2.0`; no branch change is applicable without a patch.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: ok

No source diff is present. The report appropriately classifies confidence as `inferred`, treats the two-second `pselect6` waits as likely idle-listener polling rather than a confirmed busy loop, and avoids a speculative patch. It also reports the build/test blocker, focused syntax check, and ptrace-blocked reproduction attempt without claiming reproduction.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

Response

## Plan Pass



## Workflow Note

{"type":"item.completed","item":{"id":"item_17","type":"reasoning","text":"**Checking bug-fix branch**\n**Preparing project validation**"}}
{"type":"error","message":"Reconnecting... 1/5 (stream disconnected before completion: Upstream websocket closed before response.completed: Upstream websocket receive failed)"}
{"type":"error","message":"Reconnecting... 2/5 (unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: 5d9d3a33-7252-461a-a752-052b87861cfa)"}
{"type":"error","message":"Reconnecting... 3/5 (unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: 314552d5-af6b-43c8-b277-ac5df4cee735)"}
{"type":"error","message":"Reconnecting... 4/5 (unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: 44df0517-c08f-411d-a473-b807fd3ddc1a)"}
{"type":"error","message":"Reconnecting... 5/5 (unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: 4292e7cc-1543-4205-bc88-f3170359279c)"}
{"type":"error","message":"unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: f37337af-79bc-4806-a511-1edaca151be6"}
{"type":"turn.failed","error":{"message":"unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: f37337af-79bc-4806-a511-1edaca151be6"}}

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Codex suba

[truncated 3140 bytes]

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem
- Fixer flagged `munin-node` as a likely busy poll from Perl/kernel profiling. The captured `pselect6` calls timed out after roughly 1.8–2 seconds, and the process was sleeping; this does not establish a CPU spin.
- The script entrypoint is `script/munin-node:48`, which calls `Munin::Node::Server->run` at line 102. The server inherits its accept loop from `Net::Server::Fork`; local code does not show a tight polling loop.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

The evidence points to a bounded readiness wait rather than a busy loop. This is a diagnosis plan, not a source-patch plan; no independent reproduction established the reported CPU behavior.

## Proposed Subject
- No source patch proposed. Diagnose the profile signal before attributing it to Munin or Perl.

## Patch Plan
- Make no edits. The entrypoint and caller inspection found no local busy-poll loop to change; acceptance/readiness polling is inherited from `Net::Server::Fork`.
- No prior Fixer patch was found in this workspace to improve or replace.
- Follow Munin’s `HACKING.pod` conventions if later evidence supports a code change; no relevant local polling or IO wrapper was found.

## Risks
- A speculative sleep or event-loop change could alter connection handling without addressing the observed signal.
- The profile’s hot symbol is kernel `perf_ctx_enable`, while the traced process is sleeping in timed waits; the profile does not tie CPU consumption to application code.
- Treat this as an upstream Munin investigation, not a Debian-only workaround. `HACKING.pod` identifies `master` as the development branch; this checkout is on `master`.

## Validation
- At the workspace root, `make` was attempted and stopped because `Module/Build.pm` is missing. `make check` was also attempted; there is no `check` target.
- Since there is no proposed source change, no leaf compile is applicable. A bounded reproduction attempt should capture `ps` CPU/state and a short `strace` of the entrypoint while idle; the supplied trace already shows timed `pselect6` timeouts, not a demonstrated spin.

## Patch Pass

Subject: Diagnose Munin node profile before proposing a patch

## Commit Message
No patch. The available evidence does not establish a Munin busy-poll bug: the captured `pselect6` calls wait for about two seconds and time out, while `/proc` reports `munin-node` sleeping. Profiling attributes samples to the kernel’s `perf_ctx_enable`, not to a Munin code path.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
Fixer collected a likely-busy-poll profile for `munin-node`, but its trace shows timed-out `pselect6` waits and its process status shows sleeping. The entrypoint, `script/munin-node`, calls `Munin::Node::Server->run`; that server inherits its accept loop from `Net::Server::Fork`, and source inspection did not identify a local tight polling loop. With no evidence tying the profile to a Munin code defect, I made no code change. The expected effect is to avoid an unsupported upstream change; further investigation should capture CPU usage and syscall activity from the same live process.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` from the workspace root failed because `Module/Build.pm` is missing.
- `make check` from the workspace root failed because there is no `check` target.
- `perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node` passed: syntax OK.
- An independent `strace` attach to the PID in the evidence bundle could not run: `ptrace` was not permitted. `ps` showed that PID was no longer present, so the failure signal was not independently reproduced.
- No relevant local polling or IO helper was found. Munin’s `HACKING.pod` names `master` as the development branch; this workspace is on `master`.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: ok

No source diff was generated. The diagnosis keeps confidence at `inferred`, accurately describes the timed `pselect6` waits and sleeping process, and does not claim the failure was reproduced. It also records the root-level build blockers, the focused syntax check, and the independent trace attempt’s blocker.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Codex suba

[truncated 3140 bytes]

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem
- Fixer flagged `munin-node` as a likely busy poll from Perl/kernel profiling. The captured `pselect6` calls timed out after roughly 1.8–2 seconds, and the process was sleeping; this does not establish a CPU spin.
- The script entrypoint is `script/munin-node:48`, which calls `Munin::Node::Server->run` at line 102. The server inherits its accept loop from `Net::Server::Fork`; local code does not show a tight polling loop.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

The evidence points to a bounded readiness wait rather than a busy loop. This is a diagnosis plan, not a source-patch plan; no independent reproduction established the reported CPU behavior.

## Proposed Subject
- No source patch proposed. Diagnose the profile signal before attributing it to Munin or Perl.

## Patch Plan
- Make no edits. The entrypoint and caller inspection found no local busy-poll loop to change; acceptance/readiness polling is inherited from `Net::Server::Fork`.
- No prior Fixer patch was found in this workspace to improve or replace.
- Follow Munin’s `HACKING.pod` conventions if later evidence supports a code change; no relevant local polling or IO wrapper was found.

## Risks
- A speculative sleep or event-loop change could alter connection handling without addressing the observed signal.
- The profile’s hot symbol is kernel `perf_ctx_enable`, while the traced process is sleeping in timed waits; the profile does not tie CPU consumption to application code.
- Treat this as an upstream Munin investigation, not a Debian-only workaround. `HACKING.pod` identifies `master` as the development branch; this checkout is on `master`.

## Validation
- At the workspace root, `make` was attempted and stopped because `Module/Build.pm` is missing. `make check` was also attempted; there is no `check` target.
- Since there is no proposed source change, no leaf compile is applicable. A bounded reproduction attempt should capture `ps` CPU/state and a short `strace` of the entrypoint while idle; the supplied trace already shows timed `pselect6` timeouts, not a demonstrated spin.

## Patch Pass

Subject: Diagnose Munin node profile before proposing a patch

## Commit Message
No patch. The available evidence does not establish a Munin busy-poll bug: the captured `pselect6` calls wait for about two seconds and time out, while `/proc` reports `munin-node` sleeping. Profiling attributes samples to the kernel’s `perf_ctx_enable`, not to a Munin code path.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
Fixer collected a likely-busy-poll profile for `munin-node`, but its trace shows timed-out `pselect6` waits and its process status shows sleeping. The entrypoint, `script/munin-node`, calls `Munin::Node::Server->run`; that server inherits its accept loop from `Net::Server::Fork`, and source inspection did not identify a local tight polling loop. With no evidence tying the profile to a Munin code defect, I made no code change. The expected effect is to avoid an unsupported upstream change; further investigation should capture CPU usage and syscall activity from the same live process.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` from the workspace root failed because `Module/Build.pm` is missing.
- `make check` from the workspace root failed because there is no `check` target.
- `perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node` passed: syntax OK.
- An independent `strace` attach to the PID in the evidence bundle could not run: `ptrace` was not permitted. `ps` showed that PID was no longer present, so the failure signal was not independently reproduced.
- No relevant local polling or IO helper was found. Munin’s `HACKING.pod` names `master` as the development branch; this workspace is on `master`.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: ok

No source diff was generated. The diagnosis keeps confidence at `inferred`, accurately describes the timed `pselect6` waits and sleeping process, and does not claim the failure was reproduced. It also records the root-level build blockers, the focused syntax check, and the independent trace attempt’s blocker.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Codex suba

[truncated 3140 bytes]

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem
Fixer labels `munin-node` a likely busy-poll loop, but the evidence shows a sleeping process making `pselect6` calls that block for about 1.8–2 seconds. The Perl-level stack is missing, so the signal does not establish a Munin bug.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Proposed Subject
No source patch: diagnose the reported CPU signal before attributing it to Munin.

## Patch Plan
- Make no source changes. The entrypoint, `script/munin-node`, delegates to `Munin::Node::Server->run`; that class subclasses `Net::Server::Fork` and does not implement the accept loop. The observed timed waits are consistent with the installed dependency’s listener wait.
- If further evidence identifies an application-level defect, inspect the entrypoint first and use local conventions such as `Munin::Node::OS->run_as_child` for child process/IO handling, `Munin::Common::Timeout::do_with_timeout` for timeouts, and `Munin::Node::Server`’s network IO wrappers. Avoid changing runtime code without evidence tying it to the behavior.
- No prior Fixer patch or local duplicate was found. `HACKING.pod` says bug fixes target `stable-2.0`; use that branch only if a Munin bug is confirmed. No relevant Munin polling helper was found for the listener loop.

## Risks
- A speculative change to Munin or Perl could alter normal daemon waiting without addressing the profiler signal.
- The remote upstream check could not complete because DNS/network access failed; local source contains only the synthetic baseline commit.

## Validation
- From the workspace root, try `make` first, then `make test` if build/test validation is needed. The Makefile has no `make check` target.
- Independently trace an isolated foreground `munin-node` with a controlled config and service directory using `strace` on `pselect6`, `select`, `poll`, `ppoll`, and `nanosleep`; compare CPU use and capture a Perl-level stack under the same workload. Repeated blocking waits would not reproduce a busy poll. Until such a check ties the behavior to Munin logic, do not claim the failure is reproduced.

## Patch Pass

Subject: Diagnose munin-node polling signal without speculative patch

## Commit Message
No source change. The supplied signal does not establish a Munin bug: `munin-node` was sleeping, and its `pselect6` calls blocked for about 1.8–2 seconds rather than returning immediately in a tight loop.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
Fixer’s evidence reports a likely busy poll, but the accompanying `/proc` status shows the process sleeping and the recorded `pselect6` calls time out after roughly 1.8–2 seconds. The native stack ends at `select` without identifying a Perl source frame. The `script/munin-node` entrypoint delegates to `Munin::Node::Server->run`, which inherits its listener loop from `Net::Server::Fork`; Munin’s separate `select` in `Munin::Node::OS` is for plugin-child IO and is not tied to this trace. I made no source change because the evidence does not connect the signal to a Munin defect. The expected effect is to avoid changing normal listener behavior without a demonstrated bug.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` failed at `Build.PL`: `Module/Build.pm` is unavailable.
- `perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node` passed (`syntax OK`).
- Attempted a bounded trace of the captured PID with `strace -ttT -p 3947104 -e trace=pselect6,select,poll,ppoll`; it failed because `ptrace(PTRACE_SEIZE, 3947104)` returned `Operation not permitted`, so the failure was not independently reproduced.
- `make check` is not a project target. No files were changed; no relevant Munin listener polling helper was found. `HACKING.pod` specifies `stable-2.0` for bug-fix patches, but no patch is justified by this evidence.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: ok

The patch output is a no-source-change diagnosis, consistent with the evidence and the clean workspace diff. It classifies confidence as `inferred`, does not claim reproduction, and reports the project-level build failure, focused syntax check, and blocked trace attempt. No actionable review findings.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Codex suba

[truncated 3140 bytes]

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem
Fixer labels `munin-node` a likely busy-poll loop, but the evidence shows a sleeping process making `pselect6` calls that block for about 1.8–2 seconds. The Perl-level stack is missing, so the signal does not establish a Munin bug.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Proposed Subject
No source patch: diagnose the reported CPU signal before attributing it to Munin.

## Patch Plan
- Make no source changes. The entrypoint, `script/munin-node`, delegates to `Munin::Node::Server->run`; that class subclasses `Net::Server::Fork` and does not implement the accept loop. The observed timed waits are consistent with the installed dependency’s listener wait.
- If further evidence identifies an application-level defect, inspect the entrypoint first and use local conventions such as `Munin::Node::OS->run_as_child` for child process/IO handling, `Munin::Common::Timeout::do_with_timeout` for timeouts, and `Munin::Node::Server`’s network IO wrappers. Avoid changing runtime code without evidence tying it to the behavior.
- No prior Fixer patch or local duplicate was found. `HACKING.pod` says bug fixes target `stable-2.0`; use that branch only if a Munin bug is confirmed. No relevant Munin polling helper was found for the listener loop.

## Risks
- A speculative change to Munin or Perl could alter normal daemon waiting without addressing the profiler signal.
- The remote upstream check could not complete because DNS/network access failed; local source contains only the synthetic baseline commit.

## Validation
- From the workspace root, try `make` first, then `make test` if build/test validation is needed. The Makefile has no `make check` target.
- Independently trace an isolated foreground `munin-node` with a controlled config and service directory using `strace` on `pselect6`, `select`, `poll`, `ppoll`, and `nanosleep`; compare CPU use and capture a Perl-level stack under the same workload. Repeated blocking waits would not reproduce a busy poll. Until such a check ties the behavior to Munin logic, do not claim the failure is reproduced.

## Patch Pass

Subject: Diagnose munin-node polling signal without speculative patch

## Commit Message
No source change. The supplied signal does not establish a Munin bug: `munin-node` was sleeping, and its `pselect6` calls blocked for about 1.8–2 seconds rather than returning immediately in a tight loop.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
Fixer’s evidence reports a likely busy poll, but the accompanying `/proc` status shows the process sleeping and the recorded `pselect6` calls time out after roughly 1.8–2 seconds. The native stack ends at `select` without identifying a Perl source frame. The `script/munin-node` entrypoint delegates to `Munin::Node::Server->run`, which inherits its listener loop from `Net::Server::Fork`; Munin’s separate `select` in `Munin::Node::OS` is for plugin-child IO and is not tied to this trace. I made no source change because the evidence does not connect the signal to a Munin defect. The expected effect is to avoid changing normal listener behavior without a demonstrated bug.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` failed at `Build.PL`: `Module/Build.pm` is unavailable.
- `perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node` passed (`syntax OK`).
- Attempted a bounded trace of the captured PID with `strace -ttT -p 3947104 -e trace=pselect6,select,poll,ppoll`; it failed because `ptrace(PTRACE_SEIZE, 3947104)` returned `Operation not permitted`, so the failure was not independently reproduced.
- `make check` is not a project target. No files were changed; no relevant Munin listener polling helper was found. `HACKING.pod` specifies `stable-2.0` for bug-fix patches, but no patch is justified by this evidence.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: ok

The patch output is a no-source-change diagnosis, consistent with the evidence and the clean workspace diff. It classifies confidence as `inferred`, does not claim reproduction, and reports the project-level build failure, focused syntax check, and blocked trace attempt. No actionable review findings.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Codex suba

[truncated 3140 bytes]

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem
Fixer labels `munin-node` as a likely busy poller, but the evidence doesn’t establish a busy loop or identify faulty application behavior. The captured process was sleeping; its three `pselect6` calls returned after roughly 1.8–2 seconds each. The source has a blocking `select()` in the plugin-output reader, but that alone does not demonstrate a defect. No prior Fixer patch is present in this workspace to improve or replace.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

The profiler signal is indirect and does not prove an application bug. The process entrypoint is `script/munin-node`, which delegates to `Munin::Node::Server`; `lib/Munin/Node/OS.pm` also has a blocking `select()` while reading plugin pipes. Fresh process-level evidence is needed to tell whether either path is behaving unexpectedly.

## Proposed Subject
No source patch planned; diagnose the reported `munin-node` CPU signal.

## Patch Plan
- Make no code changes unless a fresh, bounded reproduction ties the reported CPU use to a specific source path and symptom.
- First inspect the entrypoint and node event-loop path; do not target Perl runtime behavior without evidence that it mishandles the workload.
- If evidence later supports a source change, base an upstream Munin patch on `master`; `HACKING.pod` says bug fixes may target `stable-2.0`, so confirm the maintainer’s intended target before preparing a PR.
- Follow `HACKING.pod`’s tainted Perl, `strict`/`warnings`, and file-local style. No relevant local event-loop wrapper was found; the code uses Perl `select()` directly.

## Risks
A speculative loop change could disrupt plugin-output handling or timeout behavior without addressing the reported signal. `Net::Server::Fork` is a dependency path, so the in-tree inspection cannot explain its internal event loop.

## Validation
No code is planned, so no compile or test run is proposed in this planning pass. If source attribution becomes actionable, try the project-level `make` from the workspace root first; the Makefile has `test` but no `check` target. For a bounded independent reproduction attempt, capture fresh `ps` and a short `strace` of the relevant `munin-node` process while the signal occurs, checking whether waits block and whether CPU actually accumulates. The existing evidence’s timeout-returning `pselect6` calls cannot establish a busy poll.

## Patch Pass

Subject: Diagnose munin-node profiler signal without a speculative patch

## Commit Message
No source change. The available evidence does not establish a Munin busy loop, so a code patch would be speculative.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
Fixer’s signal reports 100% of sampled CPU in the kernel symbol `perf_ctx_enable`, but the captured process state was sleeping and the three traced `pselect6` calls each waited about 1.8–2 seconds before timing out. Munin’s plugin-output reader uses blocking `select()`, and the server delegates its main loop to `Net::Server::Fork`; neither fact establishes a defect. No source change was made. The collected evidence is insufficient to identify a Munin code path causing runaway CPU; fresh evidence of high runnable CPU and repeated immediate returns would be needed before proposing a targeted fix.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` from the workspace root failed when `Build.PL` could not load `Module/Build.pm`.
- `make -n check` reported `No rule to make target 'check'`; the Makefile has no `check` target.
- `perl -Ilib -c lib/Munin/Node/OS.pm` passed syntax checking, with subroutine-redefinition warnings.
- Independent reproduction was blocked: `pgrep -x munin-node` found no daemon to observe or attach `strace` to. The available Fixer trace shows timed waits, not a reproduced busy poll.
- The worktree remains unchanged. The project’s contribution guidance is in `HACKING.pod`; no relevant local event-loop wrapper was found. If a source patch becomes justified, the upstream target should be `master` unless maintainers specify otherwise.

## Review Pass 1

Noted. The independent review found no broader issue, but it didn’t address the specific overstatement: the third `pselect6` line is truncated, so its timeout result and duration aren’t visible.

## Workflow Note

Review Pass 1 did not return a `RESULT: ok` or `RESULT: fix-needed` line.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem
The evidence labels `munin-node` as a likely busy-poll loop, but does not show one: the captured `pselect6` calls wait about 1.8–2 seconds before timing out, and the process is reported sleeping in `poll_schedule_timeout`. `script/munin-node` delegates its event loop to `Net::Server::Fork`; the evidence does not tie the kernel samples to Munin code or Perl runtime behavior.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred — plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The profiler signal is indirect, and the available trace is consistent with ordinary blocking. Do not describe this as a confirmed source or runtime bug.

## Proposed Subject
No source patch proposed. Gather evidence to determine whether there is a reproducible CPU issue and whether its cause lies in Munin, `Net::Server::Fork`, or Perl.

## Patch Plan
- Make no code changes unless additional evidence identifies a Munin defect and reproduces it.
- If Munin code is implicated, inspect `script/munin-node` and `lib/Munin/Node/Server.pm` first. Follow the existing `_net_read`/`_net_write` adapters and relevant `Munin::Common` helpers; no Munin-specific poll/select abstraction was found.
- Preserve the project’s Perl strict/warnings and file-style conventions in any later patch. Avoid awkward control flow such as an unnecessary `goto`.
- The workspace is on `master` without configured remotes or useful upstream history. `HACKING.pod` says confirmed bug fixes target `stable-2.0`, while non-bugfix work targets `master`; do not select a bug-fix base until the issue is confirmed. This is a `munin` upstream investigation, not a Debian-only workaround.
- No prior Fixer patch was identified for replacement.

## Risks
Changing Munin’s request or server behavior without attribution could mask normal blocking or alter timeout/session semantics. The captured evidence does not justify that risk or a Perl runtime patch.

## Validation
- From the workspace root, try the project-level `make` entrypoint first, then `make check` if available. The documented test path is `perl Build.PL` followed by `./Build test`. No build or test was run during this planning pass.
- Make one bounded, isolated loopback `munin-node` smoke attempt with syscall timing, then compare observed waits and CPU use to the evidence. Treat it as diagnostic only; do not claim reproduction unless it demonstrates unexpectedly frequent wakeups and elevated CPU.
- If build dependencies or generated files block the project-level command, record the exact command and failure, then try the narrowest relevant reproducible compile or test.

## Patch Pass



## Workflow Note

{"type":"error","message":"Reconnecting... 1/5 (stream disconnected before completion: Upstream websocket closed before response.completed: Upstream websocket receive failed)"}
{"type":"error","message":"Reconnecting... 2/5 (unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: 55969b45-5c81-41ea-ae39-a276e536e350)"}
{"type":"error","message":"Reconnecting... 3/5 (unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: 531dc679-dec3-4e6c-8466-730b3c0dd9a0)"}
{"type":"error","message":"Reconnecting... 4/5 (unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: 3de3455a-a672-4c77-b987-2ea27ec17e34)"}
{"type":"error","message":"Reconnecting... 5/5 (unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: 8243fdc0-4127-46fc-88d5-5bf95caec27b)"}
{"type":"error","message":"unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: 51e0269b-58d2-4980-9b9e-e2a9a45102c4"}
{"type":"turn.failed","error":{"message":"unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: 51e0269b-58d2-4980-9b9e-e2a9a45102c4"}}
2026-10-02T15:32:57.091308Z ERROR codex_core::tools::router: error=exec_command failed: CreateProcess { message: "Rejected(\"`/bin/bash -lc 'set -u\\nscratch=$(mktemp -d)\\nmkdir \\\"$scratch/plugins\\\" \\\"$scratch/plugin-conf.d\\\"\\ncat >\\\"$scratch/node.conf\\\" <<EOF\\nhost 127.0.0.1\\nport 14992\\nbackground 0\\nsetsid 0\\nallow ''^127'\\\"\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\.0\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\.0\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\.1\\\\\\\\\\\"'$\\nEOF\\nset +e\\ntimeout --signal=INT --kill-after=1s 4s strace -f -ttT -e trace=pselect6 -o \\\"$…195 chars truncated…onf.d\\\" >\\\"$scratch/stdout\\\" 2>\\\"$scratch/stderr\\\"\\nstatus=$?\\nset -e\\nprintf '\\\"'bounded loopback attempt exit=%s\\\\\\\\n' \\\\\\\"\\\"'$status\\\"\\nprintf '\\\"'%s\\\\\\\\n' '--- stderr ---'; cat \\\\\\\"\\\"'$scratch/stderr\\\"\\nprintf '\\\"'%s\\\\\\\\n' '--- pselect trace ---'; cat \\\\\\\"\\\"'$scratch/trace\\\"\\nrm -rf \\\"$scratch\\\"\\nexit 0'` rejected: rm -f style commands are not permitted. Use a safer approach\")" }

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Codex suba

[truncated 22276 bytes]

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem
Fixer labels `munin-node` as likely busy-polling, but the captured trace shows `pselect6` blocking for about 1.8–2 seconds per call, with the process sleeping and reported CPU use at 0.9%. This does not establish a Munin or Perl defect.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred — the evidence points to the normal `Net::Server::Fork` listener wait, not a demonstrated spin. Before considering a source patch, collect a bounded repeat of process state and syscall timing, plus a language-level stack or CPU profile if sustained CPU use is observed. Do not claim the issue is reproduced unless that check shows it.

## Proposed Subject
No source patch; diagnose the finding as unconfirmed. The maintainer-facing report should explain that the available trace is consistent with an idle listener and does not identify a cause for the reported CPU concern.

## Patch Plan
No code changes planned. The entrypoint is `script/munin-node`, which starts `Munin::Node::Server`; the observed wait is in the inherited `Net::Server::Fork` loop. `lib/Munin/Node/OS.pm` has a separate `select` for plugin-child pipes, but the captured trace does not implicate it. No prior Fixer patch or relevant local server-loop helper was found. `CONTRIBUTING.md` points to `HACKING.pod`; that guide says bug-fix patches target `stable-2.0`, so use that base only if further evidence justifies a fix.

## Risks
Changing the listener wait based on this evidence could alter normal daemon behavior without addressing the reported concern. The trace’s “busy-poll” classification conflicts with its blocking durations and low CPU report.

## Validation
First try `make` from the workspace root, followed by `make check` only if that target exists; the current `Makefile` defines `test`, not `check`. If the project build fails due to missing dependencies or generated files, record the exact command and failure, then try the narrowest reproducible Perl syntax/test check. Independently, perform a bounded `ps` and syscall-trace check on the affected process; inspect a Perl-level stack/profile only if it shows sustained CPU use. No validation commands have been run in this planning pass.

## Patch Pass

Thanks—this independent review agrees with the diagnosis: the trace fits `Net::Server::Fork`’s blocking listener wait, not a demonstrated Munin or Perl busy loop. No source patch is warranted.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: fix-needed

## Findings
- `patch-output.txt` is only a conversational sentence. It omits the required `Subject:` line and sections for commit message, evidence confidence, issue connection, git-add paths, and validation.
- It does not state a confidence level. Given the indirect profile/trace and lack of independent reproduction, report `inferred`.
- It omits the validation record: `make` failed because `Module::Build` is missing, `make check` is not defined, the Perl syntax check passed, and the bounded reproduction attempt found no live `munin-node` process.
- Replace it with a maintainer-facing no-patch diagnosis explaining that timed-out `pselect6` calls, sleeping process state, and 0.9% CPU are consistent with the inherited `Net::Server::Fork` listener wait—not evidence of a Munin busy loop. Include the `script/munin-node` → `Munin::Node::Server` path, distinguish the unrelated `Munin::Node::OS` `select`, and list `None` under `## Git Add Paths`.
- The workspace diff is empty, which is appropriate for this inferred diagnosis; no source patch is justified by the evidence.

## Refinement Pass 1

Subject: Diagnose unconfirmed munin-node busy-poll report

## Commit Message
No source changes. The captured evidence does not establish a Munin or Perl busy loop, so a source patch would be speculative.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
The collected signal is three `pselect6` calls timing out after roughly 1.8–2 seconds, with `/proc` reporting a sleeping process and a `poll_schedule_timeout` wait channel; the profile’s `perf_ctx_enable` hotspot alone does not establish application CPU use. The cautious inference is that `script/munin-node` starts `Munin::Node::Server`, which inherits its listener wait from `Net::Server::Fork`; the separate `select` in `Munin::Node::OS` is for plugin-child pipes and is not implicated. No source change is made because the evidence does not identify a code defect. The expected effect is to avoid an unsupported fix until stronger evidence ties sustained CPU use to Munin or Perl code.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` failed: `Build.PL` could not locate `Module/Build.pm` and `make` exited with error 2.
- `make check` is unavailable; the `Makefile` defines no `check` target.
- `perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node` passed with `syntax OK`.
- Independent reproduction was blocked: `pgrep -a -f '[m]unin-node'` found no live target process to inspect or trace.
- `HACKING.pod` says bug-fix patches target `stable-2.0`; no patch or merge-request base is applicable. No relevant local helper for the inherited listener wait was found.

## Review Pass 2

RESULT: fix-needed

## Findings
- `refine-1-output.txt` overstates the trace by saying all three `pselect6` calls timed out. The first two show timeout returns and durations; the third excerpt is truncated after the timeout argument. Revise the sentence to say three calls were captured, the first two timed out, and the third is incomplete in the evidence.
- The remaining report requirements are satisfied. The workspace contains no source diff, appropriately avoiding a speculative patch based on indirect evidence.

## Refinement Pass 2



## Workflow Note

{"type":"item.completed","item":{"id":"item_2","type":"agent_message","text":"I’ll reread the refinement, review, and plan, then confirm the current patch state."}}
{"type":"error","message":"Reconnecting... 1/5 (stream disconnected before completion: Upstream websocket closed before response.completed: Upstream websocket receive failed)"}
{"type":"error","message":"Reconnecting... 2/5 (unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: 6221f7f0-2a64-4949-aa68-7d35005bb917)"}
{"type":"error","message":"Reconnecting... 3/5 (unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: dc369ee2-e8ca-48c3-ab0a-adca5c2a1900)"}
{"type":"error","message":"Reconnecting... 4/5 (unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: 7509250b-4162-4b4d-8ccb-f2f911334c42)"}
{"type":"error","message":"Reconnecting... 5/5 (unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: 85127c37-76c2-4ee8-8d31-811ea03a4a29)"}
{"type":"error","message":"unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: ccaf91c0-288f-45ba-bdfe-5588e068c7d1"}
{"type":"turn.failed","error":{"message":"unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: ccaf91c0-288f-45ba-bdfe-5588e068c7d1"}}

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

Response

## Plan Pass



## Workflow Note

{"type":"item.completed","item":{"id":"item_19","type":"reasoning","text":"**Checking bounded reproduction**"}}
{"type":"error","message":"Reconnecting... 1/5 (stream disconnected before completion: Upstream websocket closed before response.completed: Upstream websocket receive failed)"}
{"type":"error","message":"Reconnecting... 2/5 (unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: 859f7f96-f20a-4905-b5eb-ec8f41efb04f)"}
{"type":"error","message":"Reconnecting... 3/5 (unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: 4692716a-f819-4372-8798-b1eeca0efdee)"}
{"type":"error","message":"Reconnecting... 4/5 (unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: 1cfdd170-4785-44df-abd8-5218faf574ef)"}
{"type":"error","message":"Reconnecting... 5/5 (unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: 86b18869-c679-456d-b91d-b1434fa3ff90)"}
{"type":"error","message":"unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: 9f20296d-ac85-4755-9c46-c04b84e9cec5"}
{"type":"turn.failed","error":{"message":"unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: 9f20296d-ac85-4755-9c46-c04b84e9cec5"}}

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Codex suba

[truncated 15284 bytes]

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem
Fixer reported high CPU for Perl running `munin-node`, but the captured evidence shows three `pselect6` timeouts over five seconds. That pattern may be normal idle listener polling; it does not establish a Munin busy loop or user-visible failure.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred — the trace and source point to plausible normal polling, but the CPU symptom is not independently reproduced. No source patch is justified without stronger evidence.

## Proposed Subject
No patch proposed; diagnose the reported polling before changing Munin.

## Patch Plan
- Trace the script entrypoint first: `script/munin-node` calls `Munin::Node::Server->run()`, which subclasses `Net::Server::Fork`; the listener loop is delegated to that dependency. Its two-second `IO::Select` poll plausibly explains the observed timeouts.
- Distinguish listener polling from `lib/Munin/Node/OS.pm`’s plugin-output `select`, which has no timeout and is governed by plugin timeout handling.
- No relevant prior Fixer patch appears in this workspace’s baseline. No `goto` or control-flow change is warranted absent a demonstrated defect.
- Follow `HACKING.pod` and existing node/server conventions if a later patch is supported: retain `strict`/`warnings`, file-local formatting, and applicable timeout/logging helpers. The entrypoint has no Munin-owned listener-loop helper; `Net::Server::Fork` owns that loop.
- The report should explain that timed listener polls can be expected while idle. If later confirmed as a bug fix, `HACKING.pod` directs bug-fix patches to `stable-2.0`; `README.rst` identifies `master` as the default branch.

## Risks
Changing polling or timeout behavior without reproducing a defect could alter connection handling or plugin execution. The trace alone does not show CPU consumption attributable to Munin logic.

## Validation
- At workspace root, `make` was attempted and failed while generating `Build`: `Can't locate Module/Build.pm in @INC`; no project tests ran.
- `make check` was attempted and failed because the Makefile has no `check` target. The documented test entrypoint is `make test` (`HACKING.pod` also describes `perl Build.PL` then `./Build test`); retry after `Module::Build` and required dependencies are available.
- Bounded independent reproduction attempt: if the implicated process is still accessible, run `timeout 8s strace -ttT -e trace=pselect6,select -p <PID>` and correlate syscall durations with CPU usage. This may confirm timed polling, but cannot establish a bug without a concrete failure signal; no standalone reproducer is supported by the current evidence.

## Patch Pass

Subject: Diagnose munin-node polling evidence before proposing a patch

## Commit Message
No source change. The available evidence is consistent with normal idle connection polling, not a confirmed Munin busy loop. More process-level evidence is needed before changing the listener or plugin handling.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
Fixer observed a high-CPU Perl `munin-node` process, with samples in `pselect6` and three timed-out calls over five seconds. The likely explanation is the `Net::Server::Fork` listener periodically waiting for incoming connections; `script/munin-node` delegates to `Munin::Node::Server->run()`, and the trace alone does not establish that this wait caused the reported CPU use. No code change is warranted on this indirect evidence. The observed PID is unavailable in this workspace, so the signal could not be independently checked.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- Ran `make` from the workspace root; it failed generating `Build` because `Module/Build.pm` is missing from `@INC`.
- Ran `make check`; the Makefile has no `check` target.
- Could not run a narrower project test because the missing `Module::Build` prevents generating the build script.
- Bounded reproduction attempt: checked PID `3947104` with `ps`; it is not present, so an 8-second `strace` attachment could not be made. No standalone reproducer is supported by the evidence.
- No relevant Munin-owned listener-loop helper was found; that loop is delegated to `Net::Server::Fork`. The plugin-output path uses `select` in `lib/Munin/Node/OS.pm`. Contribution guidance is in `HACKING.pod`; it directs bug-fix patches to `stable-2.0`, while `README.rst` identifies `master` as the default branch.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: fix-needed

## Findings
- `patch-output.txt` calls this a “high-CPU” process, but the evidence reports `total_cpu_percent` and `max_cpu_percent` of `0.9` and records the process as sleeping. The `100%` figure refers to the sampled hot path in the kernel, not process CPU usage. Revise the diagnosis to describe the recorded measurements rather than claim high CPU. The no-patch conclusion is otherwise consistent with the evidence.

## Refinement Pass 1

Subject: Clarify munin-node process CPU evidence

## Commit Message
No source change. Clarify that the captured process was sleeping and reported 0.9% CPU; the 100% figure describes the sampled kernel hot path, not total process CPU.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
Fixer’s evidence records `munin-node` as sleeping, with `max_cpu_percent` and `total_cpu_percent` both at 0.9%. It also shows three `pselect6` timeouts over five seconds, which is consistent with the listener waiting for connections, though it does not prove the process was busy-polling. This refinement corrects the “high-CPU” wording; it makes no source change. The expected effect is a diagnosis that accurately distinguishes process CPU usage from the kernel hot-path sample.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- No tests were rerun because this refinement changes only the report wording.
- Earlier workspace-root checks: `make` failed because `Module/Build.pm` is unavailable; `make check` failed because there is no `check` target.
- The bounded PID check found process `3947104` unavailable, so `strace` could not be attached and the signal was not independently reproduced.

## Review Pass 2

RESULT: ok

The refined response addresses the review finding: it distinguishes the process’s 0.9% CPU figures from the 100% kernel hot-path sample and avoids claiming a confirmed busy-polling bug. The no-patch diagnosis remains appropriately cautious. No source changes are present.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Codex suba

[truncated 15284 bytes]

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem
Fixer reported high CPU for Perl running `munin-node`, but the captured evidence shows three `pselect6` timeouts over five seconds. That pattern may be normal idle listener polling; it does not establish a Munin busy loop or user-visible failure.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred — the trace and source point to plausible normal polling, but the CPU symptom is not independently reproduced. No source patch is justified without stronger evidence.

## Proposed Subject
No patch proposed; diagnose the reported polling before changing Munin.

## Patch Plan
- Trace the script entrypoint first: `script/munin-node` calls `Munin::Node::Server->run()`, which subclasses `Net::Server::Fork`; the listener loop is delegated to that dependency. Its two-second `IO::Select` poll plausibly explains the observed timeouts.
- Distinguish listener polling from `lib/Munin/Node/OS.pm`’s plugin-output `select`, which has no timeout and is governed by plugin timeout handling.
- No relevant prior Fixer patch appears in this workspace’s baseline. No `goto` or control-flow change is warranted absent a demonstrated defect.
- Follow `HACKING.pod` and existing node/server conventions if a later patch is supported: retain `strict`/`warnings`, file-local formatting, and applicable timeout/logging helpers. The entrypoint has no Munin-owned listener-loop helper; `Net::Server::Fork` owns that loop.
- The report should explain that timed listener polls can be expected while idle. If later confirmed as a bug fix, `HACKING.pod` directs bug-fix patches to `stable-2.0`; `README.rst` identifies `master` as the default branch.

## Risks
Changing polling or timeout behavior without reproducing a defect could alter connection handling or plugin execution. The trace alone does not show CPU consumption attributable to Munin logic.

## Validation
- At workspace root, `make` was attempted and failed while generating `Build`: `Can't locate Module/Build.pm in @INC`; no project tests ran.
- `make check` was attempted and failed because the Makefile has no `check` target. The documented test entrypoint is `make test` (`HACKING.pod` also describes `perl Build.PL` then `./Build test`); retry after `Module::Build` and required dependencies are available.
- Bounded independent reproduction attempt: if the implicated process is still accessible, run `timeout 8s strace -ttT -e trace=pselect6,select -p <PID>` and correlate syscall durations with CPU usage. This may confirm timed polling, but cannot establish a bug without a concrete failure signal; no standalone reproducer is supported by the current evidence.

## Patch Pass

Subject: Diagnose munin-node polling evidence before proposing a patch

## Commit Message
No source change. The available evidence is consistent with normal idle connection polling, not a confirmed Munin busy loop. More process-level evidence is needed before changing the listener or plugin handling.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
Fixer observed a high-CPU Perl `munin-node` process, with samples in `pselect6` and three timed-out calls over five seconds. The likely explanation is the `Net::Server::Fork` listener periodically waiting for incoming connections; `script/munin-node` delegates to `Munin::Node::Server->run()`, and the trace alone does not establish that this wait caused the reported CPU use. No code change is warranted on this indirect evidence. The observed PID is unavailable in this workspace, so the signal could not be independently checked.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- Ran `make` from the workspace root; it failed generating `Build` because `Module/Build.pm` is missing from `@INC`.
- Ran `make check`; the Makefile has no `check` target.
- Could not run a narrower project test because the missing `Module::Build` prevents generating the build script.
- Bounded reproduction attempt: checked PID `3947104` with `ps`; it is not present, so an 8-second `strace` attachment could not be made. No standalone reproducer is supported by the evidence.
- No relevant Munin-owned listener-loop helper was found; that loop is delegated to `Net::Server::Fork`. The plugin-output path uses `select` in `lib/Munin/Node/OS.pm`. Contribution guidance is in `HACKING.pod`; it directs bug-fix patches to `stable-2.0`, while `README.rst` identifies `master` as the default branch.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: fix-needed

## Findings
- `patch-output.txt` calls this a “high-CPU” process, but the evidence reports `total_cpu_percent` and `max_cpu_percent` of `0.9` and records the process as sleeping. The `100%` figure refers to the sampled hot path in the kernel, not process CPU usage. Revise the diagnosis to describe the recorded measurements rather than claim high CPU. The no-patch conclusion is otherwise consistent with the evidence.

## Refinement Pass 1

Subject: Clarify munin-node process CPU evidence

## Commit Message
No source change. Clarify that the captured process was sleeping and reported 0.9% CPU; the 100% figure describes the sampled kernel hot path, not total process CPU.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
Fixer’s evidence records `munin-node` as sleeping, with `max_cpu_percent` and `total_cpu_percent` both at 0.9%. It also shows three `pselect6` timeouts over five seconds, which is consistent with the listener waiting for connections, though it does not prove the process was busy-polling. This refinement corrects the “high-CPU” wording; it makes no source change. The expected effect is a diagnosis that accurately distinguishes process CPU usage from the kernel hot-path sample.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- No tests were rerun because this refinement changes only the report wording.
- Earlier workspace-root checks: `make` failed because `Module/Build.pm` is unavailable; `make check` failed because there is no `check` target.
- The bounded PID check found process `3947104` unavailable, so `strace` could not be attached and the signal was not independently reproduced.

## Review Pass 2

RESULT: ok

The refined response addresses the review finding: it distinguishes the process’s 0.9% CPU figures from the 100% kernel hot-path sample and avoids claiming a confirmed busy-polling bug. The no-patch diagnosis remains appropriately cautious. No source changes are present.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Codex suba

[truncated 15284 bytes]

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem
- Fixer flagged `munin-node` (running as Perl) for a likely busy-poll loop, but the captured trace does not establish a runaway CPU condition.
- The `script/munin-node` entrypoint hands server polling to `Munin::Node::Server`, which subclasses `Net::Server::Fork`. The sampled `pselect6` calls block for about 1.8–2 seconds; the process is sleeping, with `wchan=poll_schedule_timeout`. That is consistent with normal polling, not a demonstrated busy loop.
- `Munin::Node::OS::_read_from_child` also uses blocking `select`, but the evidence does not connect the captured process to that plugin-child path. No Perl-level stack or Munin source line was captured.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

No patch is justified by the current evidence. Before considering a source change, collect a Perl-level stack or equivalent trace tied to sustained high CPU in the script/application, and confirm which polling path is responsible. The existing trace alone cannot reproduce the reported failure.

## Proposed Subject
No source patch proposed; diagnose whether the `munin-node` process is actually consuming sustained CPU.

## Patch Plan
- No files to edit in this planning pass.
- If further evidence identifies an application defect, inspect the script/application path first; investigate Perl runtime behavior only if the entrypoint is shown not to cause it.
- Follow `HACKING.pod`: bug-fix patches target upstream `stable-2.0`; the workspace only exposes `master`. Keep any eventual patch upstream-facing, not Debian-only.
- Follow `CONTRIBUTING.md` and `HACKING.pod` conventions: strict/warnings, one statement per line, and existing file style. The inspected paths show no Munin-specific event-loop or poll wrapper; `Munin::Common::Timeout::do_with_timeout` is a local timeout helper, but no change to it is warranted by this trace.
- There is no prior Fixer source patch to improve or replace. Avoid changing normal polling behavior or introducing control-flow workarounds without evidence.

## Risks
- Patching polling based only on these samples could change normal server behavior while missing the actual CPU consumer.
- The top sampled symbol is in the kernel, and the evidence’s sleeping state and blocking syscall durations conflict with the busy-poll label.

## Validation
- If the issue is reproduced safely on the affected host, make one bounded independent check: sample `ps -p <pid> -o pid,stat,pcpu,etime,wchan,args` and `strace -tt -T -p <pid> -e pselect6,select` for up to five seconds; obtain a language-level stack if CPU remains high. Do not claim reproduction unless this check demonstrates sustained CPU and ties it to the application path.
- Before any focused compile or smoke check, try project-level `make` from the workspace root, then `make check` if available. The inspected Makefile exposes `test`, not `check`; if project-level commands fail due to missing dependencies or generated files, record the exact command and failure, then use the narrowest reproducible validation relevant to any later-supported change. No validation was run because this pass is plan-only.

## Patch Pass

Subject: Diagnose munin-node polling evidence without a source patch

## Commit Message
No source change. The available trace does not establish a Munin busy-poll bug: `munin-node` is sleeping in `pselect6`, with waits near two seconds, rather than repeatedly returning without blocking. More process-level evidence is needed before changing polling behavior.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
Fixer’s evidence reports a likely busy-poll loop, but the captured process was sleeping, its wait channel was `poll_schedule_timeout`, and its three `pselect6` calls waited about 1.8–2 seconds each. The samples therefore suggest normal blocking server polling, likely through `Net::Server::Fork`; they do not identify a Munin source line or establish that the application caused sustained CPU use. `script/munin-node` delegates serving to `Munin::Node::Server`, while `Munin::Node::OS::_read_from_child` has a separate blocking `select` path not tied to this process by the evidence. I made no code change because the cause remains unconfirmed. The expected effect is to avoid changing normal polling behavior until a trace or reproduction ties sustained CPU use to a specific application path.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` — blocked: `Build.PL` cannot find `Module/Build.pm`.
- `make check` — unavailable: Make reports `No rule to make target 'check'`.
- `perl -Ilib -c script/munin-node` — blocked because the script’s `-T` shebang requires taint mode on the command line.
- `perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node` — passed: `syntax OK`.
- Bounded process check, `ps -p 3947104 -o pid,stat,pcpu,etime,wchan,args` — the captured PID was absent from this workspace environment, so the failure could not be independently reproduced or traced.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: fix-needed

## Findings
- `Issue Connection` overstates the trace: it says all three `pselect6` calls waited about 1.8–2 seconds each, but the excerpt contains completed durations for only the first two (`1.815530` and `2.002044` seconds). The third call is truncated without a result or duration. Revise the sentence to distinguish the two completed waits from the incomplete third call.

## Refinement Pass 1

Subject: Diagnose munin-node polling evidence without a source patch

## Commit Message
No source change. The evidence does not establish a Munin busy-poll bug, so changing server polling would be speculative. More process-level evidence is needed before proposing a fix.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
Fixer’s evidence flags a likely busy-poll loop, but the captured process was sleeping in `poll_schedule_timeout`. The first two complete `pselect6` entries blocked for 1.815530 and 2.002044 seconds; the third entry is truncated before its result and duration. This suggests normal blocking server polling, likely supplied by `Net::Server::Fork`, but does not tie sustained CPU use to a Munin source line. `script/munin-node` delegates serving to `Munin::Node::Server`; its separate `Munin::Node::OS::_read_from_child` blocking `select` path is not implicated by the trace. No relevant Munin event-loop helper was found. I made no code change because the cause remains unconfirmed. The expected effect is to avoid changing normal polling behavior until stronger evidence identifies the responsible path. `HACKING.pod` directs bug fixes to upstream `stable-2.0`; this workspace exposes only `master`.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` — blocked because `Build.PL` cannot locate `Module/Build.pm`.
- `make check` — unavailable; Make reports `No rule to make target 'check'`.
- `perl -Ilib -c script/munin-node` — failed because the script’s `-T` shebang requires taint mode on the command line.
- `perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node` — passed with `syntax OK`.
- Bounded check `ps -p 3947104 -o pid,stat,pcpu,etime,wchan,args` — the captured PID was absent in this workspace environment, so the failure was not independently reproduced.

## Review Pass 2

RESULT: ok

The refinement accurately distinguishes the two completed `pselect6` waits from the truncated third entry. It retains an inferred, no-patch diagnosis, reports the root build blocker and focused syntax check, and the workspace has no source diff.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Codex suba

[truncated 15284 bytes]

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem
- Fixer flagged `munin-node` (running as Perl) for a likely busy-poll loop, but the captured trace does not establish a runaway CPU condition.
- The `script/munin-node` entrypoint hands server polling to `Munin::Node::Server`, which subclasses `Net::Server::Fork`. The sampled `pselect6` calls block for about 1.8–2 seconds; the process is sleeping, with `wchan=poll_schedule_timeout`. That is consistent with normal polling, not a demonstrated busy loop.
- `Munin::Node::OS::_read_from_child` also uses blocking `select`, but the evidence does not connect the captured process to that plugin-child path. No Perl-level stack or Munin source line was captured.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

No patch is justified by the current evidence. Before considering a source change, collect a Perl-level stack or equivalent trace tied to sustained high CPU in the script/application, and confirm which polling path is responsible. The existing trace alone cannot reproduce the reported failure.

## Proposed Subject
No source patch proposed; diagnose whether the `munin-node` process is actually consuming sustained CPU.

## Patch Plan
- No files to edit in this planning pass.
- If further evidence identifies an application defect, inspect the script/application path first; investigate Perl runtime behavior only if the entrypoint is shown not to cause it.
- Follow `HACKING.pod`: bug-fix patches target upstream `stable-2.0`; the workspace only exposes `master`. Keep any eventual patch upstream-facing, not Debian-only.
- Follow `CONTRIBUTING.md` and `HACKING.pod` conventions: strict/warnings, one statement per line, and existing file style. The inspected paths show no Munin-specific event-loop or poll wrapper; `Munin::Common::Timeout::do_with_timeout` is a local timeout helper, but no change to it is warranted by this trace.
- There is no prior Fixer source patch to improve or replace. Avoid changing normal polling behavior or introducing control-flow workarounds without evidence.

## Risks
- Patching polling based only on these samples could change normal server behavior while missing the actual CPU consumer.
- The top sampled symbol is in the kernel, and the evidence’s sleeping state and blocking syscall durations conflict with the busy-poll label.

## Validation
- If the issue is reproduced safely on the affected host, make one bounded independent check: sample `ps -p <pid> -o pid,stat,pcpu,etime,wchan,args` and `strace -tt -T -p <pid> -e pselect6,select` for up to five seconds; obtain a language-level stack if CPU remains high. Do not claim reproduction unless this check demonstrates sustained CPU and ties it to the application path.
- Before any focused compile or smoke check, try project-level `make` from the workspace root, then `make check` if available. The inspected Makefile exposes `test`, not `check`; if project-level commands fail due to missing dependencies or generated files, record the exact command and failure, then use the narrowest reproducible validation relevant to any later-supported change. No validation was run because this pass is plan-only.

## Patch Pass

Subject: Diagnose munin-node polling evidence without a source patch

## Commit Message
No source change. The available trace does not establish a Munin busy-poll bug: `munin-node` is sleeping in `pselect6`, with waits near two seconds, rather than repeatedly returning without blocking. More process-level evidence is needed before changing polling behavior.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
Fixer’s evidence reports a likely busy-poll loop, but the captured process was sleeping, its wait channel was `poll_schedule_timeout`, and its three `pselect6` calls waited about 1.8–2 seconds each. The samples therefore suggest normal blocking server polling, likely through `Net::Server::Fork`; they do not identify a Munin source line or establish that the application caused sustained CPU use. `script/munin-node` delegates serving to `Munin::Node::Server`, while `Munin::Node::OS::_read_from_child` has a separate blocking `select` path not tied to this process by the evidence. I made no code change because the cause remains unconfirmed. The expected effect is to avoid changing normal polling behavior until a trace or reproduction ties sustained CPU use to a specific application path.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` — blocked: `Build.PL` cannot find `Module/Build.pm`.
- `make check` — unavailable: Make reports `No rule to make target 'check'`.
- `perl -Ilib -c script/munin-node` — blocked because the script’s `-T` shebang requires taint mode on the command line.
- `perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node` — passed: `syntax OK`.
- Bounded process check, `ps -p 3947104 -o pid,stat,pcpu,etime,wchan,args` — the captured PID was absent from this workspace environment, so the failure could not be independently reproduced or traced.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: fix-needed

## Findings
- `Issue Connection` overstates the trace: it says all three `pselect6` calls waited about 1.8–2 seconds each, but the excerpt contains completed durations for only the first two (`1.815530` and `2.002044` seconds). The third call is truncated without a result or duration. Revise the sentence to distinguish the two completed waits from the incomplete third call.

## Refinement Pass 1

Subject: Diagnose munin-node polling evidence without a source patch

## Commit Message
No source change. The evidence does not establish a Munin busy-poll bug, so changing server polling would be speculative. More process-level evidence is needed before proposing a fix.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
Fixer’s evidence flags a likely busy-poll loop, but the captured process was sleeping in `poll_schedule_timeout`. The first two complete `pselect6` entries blocked for 1.815530 and 2.002044 seconds; the third entry is truncated before its result and duration. This suggests normal blocking server polling, likely supplied by `Net::Server::Fork`, but does not tie sustained CPU use to a Munin source line. `script/munin-node` delegates serving to `Munin::Node::Server`; its separate `Munin::Node::OS::_read_from_child` blocking `select` path is not implicated by the trace. No relevant Munin event-loop helper was found. I made no code change because the cause remains unconfirmed. The expected effect is to avoid changing normal polling behavior until stronger evidence identifies the responsible path. `HACKING.pod` directs bug fixes to upstream `stable-2.0`; this workspace exposes only `master`.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` — blocked because `Build.PL` cannot locate `Module/Build.pm`.
- `make check` — unavailable; Make reports `No rule to make target 'check'`.
- `perl -Ilib -c script/munin-node` — failed because the script’s `-T` shebang requires taint mode on the command line.
- `perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node` — passed with `syntax OK`.
- Bounded check `ps -p 3947104 -o pid,stat,pcpu,etime,wchan,args` — the captured PID was absent in this workspace environment, so the failure was not independently reproduced.

## Review Pass 2

RESULT: ok

The refinement accurately distinguishes the two completed `pselect6` waits from the truncated third entry. It retains an inferred, no-patch diagnosis, reports the root build blocker and focused syntax check, and the workspace has no source diff.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

Response

## Plan Pass



## Workflow Note

{"type":"item.completed","item":{"id":"item_11","type":"reasoning","text":"**Collecting Server event-loop evidence**\n**Inspecting Server event loop**"}}
{"type":"error","message":"Reconnecting... 1/5 (stream disconnected before completion: Upstream websocket closed before response.completed: Upstream websocket receive failed)"}
{"type":"error","message":"Reconnecting... 2/5 (unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: 3f96b6f8-d002-45af-b669-120f2a2d7124)"}
{"type":"error","message":"Reconnecting... 3/5 (unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: beb0132e-7779-46b5-bb12-2b7560d07488)"}
{"type":"error","message":"Reconnecting... 4/5 (unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: bbb106de-bd0a-4e21-addf-940b4067aa96)"}
{"type":"error","message":"Reconnecting... 5/5 (unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: ac55ce09-d087-4bfd-8183-174db9659786)"}
{"type":"error","message":"unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: bbea24a7-08c2-4a2a-af99-ccf9ec9c502b"}
{"type":"turn.failed","error":{"message":"unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: bbea24a7-08c2-4a2a-af99-ccf9ec9c502b"}}

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem
- Fixer observed a Perl `munin-node` process with three sampled `pselect6` calls and a kernel `perf_ctx_enable` hot symbol. The trace does not identify the Perl call site or establish that the process was spinning; an idle server or plugin wait remains possible.
- Source inspection found blocking `select` in `Munin::Node::OS::_read_from_child`, but the evidence does not connect that code to the sampled process or establish a user-visible failure.

## Evidence Confidence
- **inferred**
- Before editing, collect a language-level stack or syscall trace tied to the affected `munin-node` process, plus process state and relevant plugin activity, to determine whether the sampling reflects expected waiting or a script-level loop. No reproducer is supplied by the evidence bundle.

## Proposed Subject
- No source-patch subject yet; prepare a diagnosis/report unless additional evidence ties the hot path to a specific Munin code path and failure.

## Patch Plan
- Do not patch from the current evidence. `script/munin-node` delegates server operation to `Munin::Node::Server`; `lib/Munin/Node/OS.pm` has a blocking `select` while reading plugin output, but that alone does not establish a defect.
- If further evidence confirms a timeout or child-reaping issue, investigate `Munin::Node::OS::run_as_child` and `_read_from_child` with their callers, including `Munin::Node::Service` and `Munin::Common::Timeout`. Preserve the existing timeout helper and local Perl style; prefer a bounded, clear control-flow fix over an avoidable `goto`.
- No prior Fixer patch is identified. `CONTRIBUTING.md` and `HACKING.pod` specify commit/style guidance; `README.rst` says to rebase on the default branch `master` or a stable branch. For upstream review, use `master`, not the Debian source snapshot as the merge base.

## Risks
- A speculative change to the plugin wait loop could alter timeout or child-reaping behavior without addressing the sampled process. No authentication, authorization, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or other listed high-risk area is implicated.
- No Munin-specific wrapper for this `select` path was found; the relevant local helper is `Munin::Common::Timeout`.

## Validation
- From the workspace root, try `make` and then `make check` if that target exists; report exact failures, including missing dependencies or generated files. The documented test workflow in `HACKING.pod` is `perl Build.PL` followed by `./Build test`.
- For the independent reproduction attempt, inspect the affected process with the evidence-recommended `ps -p <pid> -o pid,stat,pcpu,etime,wchan,args` and collect a language-level stack or trace if the process is available. If it is not available, report that the profiler signal could not be independently reproduced; do not invent a workload or claim reproduction.

## Patch Pass



## Workflow Note

{"type":"item.completed","item":{"id":"item_15","type":"reasoning","text":"**Framing select findings**\n**Checking Perl syntax**"}}
{"type":"error","message":"Reconnecting... 1/5 (stream disconnected before completion: Upstream websocket closed before response.completed: Upstream websocket receive failed)"}
{"type":"error","message":"Reconnecting... 2/5 (unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: 609a76bd-262b-4dc3-9244-ddcf2c33808a)"}
{"type":"error","message":"Reconnecting... 3/5 (unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: 3b997681-b190-4b7c-bce7-28e2517f8be9)"}
{"type":"error","message":"Reconnecting... 4/5 (unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: c3319d95-ed8e-4e06-be1b-1ad2b7d5d948)"}
{"type":"error","message":"Reconnecting... 5/5 (unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: beb2f52a-8666-4a39-906d-b915b836003e)"}
{"type":"error","message":"unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: 78a33f1f-1b70-4238-9e7e-9df78490122e"}
{"type":"turn.failed","error":{"message":"unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: 78a33f1f-1b70-4238-9e7e-9df78490122e"}}

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Codex suba

[truncated 3140 bytes]

Response

## Plan Pass

The plan stands: this is an **inferred, no-patch diagnosis**. Additional history inspection found no prior Fixer event-loop patch; the workspace has only the `master` baseline and no remotes. `HACKING.pod` directs bug-fix patches to `stable-2.0`, but no merge-request base is selected unless a source bug is confirmed.

## Patch Pass

Subject: Diagnose munin-node polling evidence without a source patch

## Commit Message
No source change is justified by the available evidence. Fixer’s trace shows `munin-node` waiting in `pselect6` and timing out after roughly two seconds, while `/proc` reports the process sleeping in `poll_schedule_timeout`. This points more strongly to normal daemon waiting than to a demonstrated busy loop. The profiler’s `perf_ctx_enable` samples do not identify a Munin code path or, by themselves, prove the process was spinning.

The Perl entrypoint delegates its listener loop to `Net::Server::Fork`. Munin’s local `select` in `lib/Munin/Node/OS.pm` handles plugin-child pipes, not the listener. No relevant local listener-loop helper or prior Fixer patch was found. `HACKING.pod` directs confirmed bug fixes to `stable-2.0`; because no patch is supported, no merge-request base is selected.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
Fixer collected repeated `pselect6` timeouts for `munin-node`; the process status and wait channel indicate it was sleeping rather than demonstrably spinning. The source inspection found that the daemon delegates connection waiting to `Net::Server::Fork`, but the collected evidence does not tie the signal to a Munin code defect. I made no source change. The appropriate next step is to capture a language-level stack and CPU accounting while the affected process is present, before proposing a code fix.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` — blocked during `Build.PL`: `Can't locate Module/Build.pm in @INC`; no `Build` artifact was created.
- `make check` — unavailable: the Makefile has no `check` target.
- `perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node` — passed (`syntax OK`). The initial attempt without `-T` failed because the script requires taint mode.
- Bounded trace attempt, `timeout 8s strace -ttT -e pselect6,select,poll,ppoll,epoll_wait,nanosleep -p 3947104` — blocked by `ptrace` permission (`Operation not permitted`); the captured PID was also absent from this environment. The failure signal was not independently reproduced.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: ok

The patch output is a cautious `inferred` no-patch diagnosis, consistent with the indirect profiler/strace evidence. The workspace has no source diff, and the reported build, syntax-check, and reproduction blockers are consistent with the validation results. No actionable findings.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Codex suba

[truncated 3140 bytes]

Response

## Plan Pass

The plan stands: this is an **inferred, no-patch diagnosis**. Additional history inspection found no prior Fixer event-loop patch; the workspace has only the `master` baseline and no remotes. `HACKING.pod` directs bug-fix patches to `stable-2.0`, but no merge-request base is selected unless a source bug is confirmed.

## Patch Pass

Subject: Diagnose munin-node polling evidence without a source patch

## Commit Message
No source change is justified by the available evidence. Fixer’s trace shows `munin-node` waiting in `pselect6` and timing out after roughly two seconds, while `/proc` reports the process sleeping in `poll_schedule_timeout`. This points more strongly to normal daemon waiting than to a demonstrated busy loop. The profiler’s `perf_ctx_enable` samples do not identify a Munin code path or, by themselves, prove the process was spinning.

The Perl entrypoint delegates its listener loop to `Net::Server::Fork`. Munin’s local `select` in `lib/Munin/Node/OS.pm` handles plugin-child pipes, not the listener. No relevant local listener-loop helper or prior Fixer patch was found. `HACKING.pod` directs confirmed bug fixes to `stable-2.0`; because no patch is supported, no merge-request base is selected.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
Fixer collected repeated `pselect6` timeouts for `munin-node`; the process status and wait channel indicate it was sleeping rather than demonstrably spinning. The source inspection found that the daemon delegates connection waiting to `Net::Server::Fork`, but the collected evidence does not tie the signal to a Munin code defect. I made no source change. The appropriate next step is to capture a language-level stack and CPU accounting while the affected process is present, before proposing a code fix.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` — blocked during `Build.PL`: `Can't locate Module/Build.pm in @INC`; no `Build` artifact was created.
- `make check` — unavailable: the Makefile has no `check` target.
- `perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node` — passed (`syntax OK`). The initial attempt without `-T` failed because the script requires taint mode.
- Bounded trace attempt, `timeout 8s strace -ttT -e pselect6,select,poll,ppoll,epoll_wait,nanosleep -p 3947104` — blocked by `ptrace` permission (`Operation not permitted`); the captured PID was also absent from this environment. The failure signal was not independently reproduced.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: ok

The patch output is a cautious `inferred` no-patch diagnosis, consistent with the indirect profiler/strace evidence. The workspace has no source diff, and the reported build, syntax-check, and reproduction blockers are consistent with the validation results. No actionable findings.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Codex suba

[truncated 3140 bytes]

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem
Fixer flagged `munin-node` as a likely busy-poll loop, but the evidence does not tie high CPU use to Munin or Perl code. The captured `pselect6` calls time out after roughly 1.8–2 seconds, and the process was sleeping in `poll_schedule_timeout`. The independently checked PID, `3947104`, was no longer present.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

The profile attributes samples to kernel `perf_ctx_enable`, not a Munin function. This supports investigating the signal, but does not establish a Munin bug or a reproducible failure.

## Proposed Subject
No source patch proposed. Diagnose whether the reported CPU signal is reproducible and attributable to `munin-node` before changing code.

## Patch Plan
No edits in this pass. Before considering a patch, collect a live process CPU/state snapshot and a language-level stack or trace tied to the hot path. Inspect `script/munin-node` and its application-level callers first; investigate Perl runtime behavior only if that evidence points to the runtime. No relevant local event-loop helper was found; `Munin::Node::OS` does have a child-process output reader, but the current evidence does not connect it to the reported polling signal. No prior Fixer patch was found to improve or replace. `HACKING.pod` directs bug-fix patches to `stable-2.0`; use that base if a bug is confirmed.

## Risks
A speculative event-loop change could alter node behavior without addressing the kernel-side profile. Avoid presenting a separate code-path concern as the cause absent evidence connecting it to this report.

## Validation
From the workspace root, try `make` and then the project test target `make test`; the Makefile defines `test`, not `check`. For a bounded reproduction attempt, inspect a live `munin-node` with `ps -p <pid> -o pid,stat,pcpu,etime,wchan,args` and capture a short trace or language-level stack if the signal recurs. The supplied PID is gone, so this evidence cannot currently be reproduced; no focused leaf compile is warranted without a patch.

## Patch Pass

Subject: Diagnose munin-node polling signal before proposing a code change

## Commit Message
No source change. The available trace does not establish a Munin defect, so a speculative polling change would not be ready for upstream review.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
The collected signal is a `munin-node` Perl process whose profiler samples were attributed to kernel `perf_ctx_enable`; its captured `pselect6` calls waited roughly 1.8–2 seconds and timed out, while `/proc` reported the process sleeping. That does not demonstrate a busy loop or tie the samples to a Munin source location. The node’s listener delegates to external `Net::Server::Fork`; Munin also has a child-plugin `select()` path in `Munin::Node::OS`, but the evidence does not identify either as the sampled call site. I made no code change because the failure is not tied to a fixable source cause. The expected effect of this diagnosis is to avoid an unsupported patch; stronger live CPU and Perl-level stack evidence is needed first.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` and `make test` both stopped in `Build.PL` because `Module::Build` is not installed.
- `perl -Ilib -c script/munin-node` failed because the script’s shebang requires taint mode; `perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node` passed.
- The bounded process check, `ps -p 3947104 -o pid,stat,pcpu,etime,wchan,args`, found no such PID. The reported signal was not independently reproduced.
- `HACKING.pod` says bug-fix patches target `stable-2.0`; no branch-base change applies without a patch. No relevant local listener helper was found; the child-process polling helper is not linked to this signal.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: ok

The response correctly leaves the patch empty: the captured `pselect6` calls time out and `/proc` reports the process sleeping, with no source-level evidence tying the profile to a Munin defect. Validation blockers are disclosed, and no actionable review issue was found.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Codex suba

[truncated 3140 bytes]

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem
Fixer flagged `munin-node` as a likely busy-poll loop, but the evidence does not tie high CPU use to Munin or Perl code. The captured `pselect6` calls time out after roughly 1.8–2 seconds, and the process was sleeping in `poll_schedule_timeout`. The independently checked PID, `3947104`, was no longer present.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

The profile attributes samples to kernel `perf_ctx_enable`, not a Munin function. This supports investigating the signal, but does not establish a Munin bug or a reproducible failure.

## Proposed Subject
No source patch proposed. Diagnose whether the reported CPU signal is reproducible and attributable to `munin-node` before changing code.

## Patch Plan
No edits in this pass. Before considering a patch, collect a live process CPU/state snapshot and a language-level stack or trace tied to the hot path. Inspect `script/munin-node` and its application-level callers first; investigate Perl runtime behavior only if that evidence points to the runtime. No relevant local event-loop helper was found; `Munin::Node::OS` does have a child-process output reader, but the current evidence does not connect it to the reported polling signal. No prior Fixer patch was found to improve or replace. `HACKING.pod` directs bug-fix patches to `stable-2.0`; use that base if a bug is confirmed.

## Risks
A speculative event-loop change could alter node behavior without addressing the kernel-side profile. Avoid presenting a separate code-path concern as the cause absent evidence connecting it to this report.

## Validation
From the workspace root, try `make` and then the project test target `make test`; the Makefile defines `test`, not `check`. For a bounded reproduction attempt, inspect a live `munin-node` with `ps -p <pid> -o pid,stat,pcpu,etime,wchan,args` and capture a short trace or language-level stack if the signal recurs. The supplied PID is gone, so this evidence cannot currently be reproduced; no focused leaf compile is warranted without a patch.

## Patch Pass

Subject: Diagnose munin-node polling signal before proposing a code change

## Commit Message
No source change. The available trace does not establish a Munin defect, so a speculative polling change would not be ready for upstream review.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
The collected signal is a `munin-node` Perl process whose profiler samples were attributed to kernel `perf_ctx_enable`; its captured `pselect6` calls waited roughly 1.8–2 seconds and timed out, while `/proc` reported the process sleeping. That does not demonstrate a busy loop or tie the samples to a Munin source location. The node’s listener delegates to external `Net::Server::Fork`; Munin also has a child-plugin `select()` path in `Munin::Node::OS`, but the evidence does not identify either as the sampled call site. I made no code change because the failure is not tied to a fixable source cause. The expected effect of this diagnosis is to avoid an unsupported patch; stronger live CPU and Perl-level stack evidence is needed first.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` and `make test` both stopped in `Build.PL` because `Module::Build` is not installed.
- `perl -Ilib -c script/munin-node` failed because the script’s shebang requires taint mode; `perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node` passed.
- The bounded process check, `ps -p 3947104 -o pid,stat,pcpu,etime,wchan,args`, found no such PID. The reported signal was not independently reproduced.
- `HACKING.pod` says bug-fix patches target `stable-2.0`; no branch-base change applies without a patch. No relevant local listener helper was found; the child-process polling helper is not linked to this signal.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: ok

The response correctly leaves the patch empty: the captured `pselect6` calls time out and `/proc` reports the process sleeping, with no source-level evidence tying the profile to a Munin defect. Validation blockers are disclosed, and no actionable review issue was found.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Codex suba

[truncated 15284 bytes]

Response

## Plan Pass

The scout confirms the Perl style and test conventions described in the plan: taint-safe `strict`/`warnings`, file-local formatting, and tests via `./Build test`. This doesn’t change the diagnosis: the supplied trace does not demonstrate a busy loop, so no source patch is justified yet.

## Patch Pass

Subject: Diagnose insufficient evidence for munin-node busy polling

## Commit Message
No source change. The available trace does not establish a `munin-node` busy loop, so a code patch would be speculative.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
The report flags high CPU for `munin-node`, with all sampled CPU attributed to the kernel symbol `perf_ctx_enable`. But the captured `pselect6` calls waited about 1.8 and 2 seconds before timing out, and `/proc` showed the process sleeping with 236 voluntary context switches. This evidence points more toward an idle wait—or a misleading profile signal—than a demonstrated spin; it does not identify a faulty Munin code path.

The entrypoint delegates its server event loop to `Net::Server::Fork`; Munin’s `Munin::Node::Server` handles requests but does not implement that polling loop. The repository-local `select` in `Munin::Node::OS` handles plugin pipes, with no evidence connecting it to this trace. I made no code change. The expected effect is to avoid an unsupported fix and give upstream a clear request for a fresh capture that ties sustained CPU use to an application-level stack or repeated non-blocking calls. The workspace had no prior source patch to replace. No branch base was selected; `HACKING.pod` says bug-fix patches should target `stable-2.0`.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` failed because `Module::Build` is unavailable (`Can't locate Module/Build.pm` at `Build.PL` line 80).
- `make -n check` reported `No rule to make target 'check'`.
- `perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node` passed (`syntax OK`).
- Independent reproduction attempt: `ps -p 3947104 -o pid,stat,pcpu,etime,wchan,args` found no such process, so the captured signal could not be retested. No live daemon was attached to or restarted.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: fix-needed

## Findings
- `patch-output.txt` says the report “flags high CPU” and that all sampled CPU was attributed to `perf_ctx_enable`, but omits the contradictory measured CPU values: `max_cpu_percent` and `total_cpu_percent` are both `0.9%` in `evidence.json`. Clarify that 100% is the share of profiler samples attributed to that kernel symbol, not 100% CPU utilization. This distinction strengthens the no-patch diagnosis and avoids repeating the busy-poll interpretation as an established symptom.

## Refinement Pass 1

Subject: Clarify Munin node CPU evidence

## Commit Message
No source change. The diagnosis now distinguishes the profiler’s sample share from measured CPU utilization.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
The report classifies `munin-node` as a likely busy poll, but the evidence records both maximum and total CPU utilization at `0.9%`. The `100%` figure is the share of profiler samples attributed to the kernel symbol `perf_ctx_enable`, not CPU utilization. The captured `pselect6` calls waited about 1.8 and 2 seconds before timing out, and `/proc` showed the process sleeping with 236 voluntary context switches. Together, these signals do not establish a busy loop or identify a faulty Munin code path.

The entrypoint delegates the server event loop to `Net::Server::Fork`; Munin’s `Munin::Node::Server` does not implement that polling loop. The local `select` in `Munin::Node::OS` handles plugin pipes, with no evidence linking it to this trace. I made no code change. The expected effect is to prevent the profiler’s sample share from being mistaken for high CPU usage and to request application-level evidence before proposing a fix. No relevant local event-loop helper was found. No upstream base was selected; `HACKING.pod` directs bug-fix patches to `stable-2.0`.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- Addressed the review finding by explicitly reporting the measured `0.9%` maximum and total CPU values and distinguishing them from the profiler’s `100%` sample share.
- `make` failed because `Module::Build` is unavailable (`Can't locate Module/Build.pm` at `Build.PL` line 80).
- `make -n check` failed because the Makefile has no `check` target.
- `perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node` passed (`syntax OK`).
- Reproduction check: `ps -p 3947104 -o pid,stat,pcpu,etime,wchan,args` found no such process, so the captured signal could not be retested. No live daemon was disturbed.

## Review Pass 2

RESULT: ok

The refined diagnosis addresses the review finding: it distinguishes the `0.9%` measured CPU utilization from the `100%` share of profiler samples attributed to `perf_ctx_enable`. `inferred` remains appropriate, the validation reports the build blocker and attempted reproduction, and the workspace has no source diff.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Codex suba

[truncated 15284 bytes]

Response

## Plan Pass

The scout confirms the Perl style and test conventions described in the plan: taint-safe `strict`/`warnings`, file-local formatting, and tests via `./Build test`. This doesn’t change the diagnosis: the supplied trace does not demonstrate a busy loop, so no source patch is justified yet.

## Patch Pass

Subject: Diagnose insufficient evidence for munin-node busy polling

## Commit Message
No source change. The available trace does not establish a `munin-node` busy loop, so a code patch would be speculative.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
The report flags high CPU for `munin-node`, with all sampled CPU attributed to the kernel symbol `perf_ctx_enable`. But the captured `pselect6` calls waited about 1.8 and 2 seconds before timing out, and `/proc` showed the process sleeping with 236 voluntary context switches. This evidence points more toward an idle wait—or a misleading profile signal—than a demonstrated spin; it does not identify a faulty Munin code path.

The entrypoint delegates its server event loop to `Net::Server::Fork`; Munin’s `Munin::Node::Server` handles requests but does not implement that polling loop. The repository-local `select` in `Munin::Node::OS` handles plugin pipes, with no evidence connecting it to this trace. I made no code change. The expected effect is to avoid an unsupported fix and give upstream a clear request for a fresh capture that ties sustained CPU use to an application-level stack or repeated non-blocking calls. The workspace had no prior source patch to replace. No branch base was selected; `HACKING.pod` says bug-fix patches should target `stable-2.0`.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` failed because `Module::Build` is unavailable (`Can't locate Module/Build.pm` at `Build.PL` line 80).
- `make -n check` reported `No rule to make target 'check'`.
- `perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node` passed (`syntax OK`).
- Independent reproduction attempt: `ps -p 3947104 -o pid,stat,pcpu,etime,wchan,args` found no such process, so the captured signal could not be retested. No live daemon was attached to or restarted.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: fix-needed

## Findings
- `patch-output.txt` says the report “flags high CPU” and that all sampled CPU was attributed to `perf_ctx_enable`, but omits the contradictory measured CPU values: `max_cpu_percent` and `total_cpu_percent` are both `0.9%` in `evidence.json`. Clarify that 100% is the share of profiler samples attributed to that kernel symbol, not 100% CPU utilization. This distinction strengthens the no-patch diagnosis and avoids repeating the busy-poll interpretation as an established symptom.

## Refinement Pass 1

Subject: Clarify Munin node CPU evidence

## Commit Message
No source change. The diagnosis now distinguishes the profiler’s sample share from measured CPU utilization.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
The report classifies `munin-node` as a likely busy poll, but the evidence records both maximum and total CPU utilization at `0.9%`. The `100%` figure is the share of profiler samples attributed to the kernel symbol `perf_ctx_enable`, not CPU utilization. The captured `pselect6` calls waited about 1.8 and 2 seconds before timing out, and `/proc` showed the process sleeping with 236 voluntary context switches. Together, these signals do not establish a busy loop or identify a faulty Munin code path.

The entrypoint delegates the server event loop to `Net::Server::Fork`; Munin’s `Munin::Node::Server` does not implement that polling loop. The local `select` in `Munin::Node::OS` handles plugin pipes, with no evidence linking it to this trace. I made no code change. The expected effect is to prevent the profiler’s sample share from being mistaken for high CPU usage and to request application-level evidence before proposing a fix. No relevant local event-loop helper was found. No upstream base was selected; `HACKING.pod` directs bug-fix patches to `stable-2.0`.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- Addressed the review finding by explicitly reporting the measured `0.9%` maximum and total CPU values and distinguishing them from the profiler’s `100%` sample share.
- `make` failed because `Module::Build` is unavailable (`Can't locate Module/Build.pm` at `Build.PL` line 80).
- `make -n check` failed because the Makefile has no `check` target.
- `perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node` passed (`syntax OK`).
- Reproduction check: `ps -p 3947104 -o pid,stat,pcpu,etime,wchan,args` found no such process, so the captured signal could not be retested. No live daemon was disturbed.

## Review Pass 2

RESULT: ok

The refined diagnosis addresses the review finding: it distinguishes the `0.9%` measured CPU utilization from the `100%` share of profiler samples attributed to `perf_ctx_enable`. `inferred` remains appropriate, the validation reports the build blocker and attempted reproduction, and the workspace has no source diff.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

Response

## Plan Pass



## Workflow Note

{"type":"error","message":"Reconnecting... 4/5 (unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: e7be1b78-4196-4f71-9503-31756d9be9ad)"}
{"type":"error","message":"Reconnecting... 5/5 (unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: 1d42d050-dab8-445c-89fb-1ee776f210c8)"}
{"type":"error","message":"unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: 8b2217e7-3bc4-4df2-8e41-fad52e017d0f"}
{"type":"turn.failed","error":{"message":"unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: 8b2217e7-3bc4-4df2-8e41-fad52e017d0f"}}
2026-10-01T20:56:10.681090Z ERROR codex_core::session: failed to record rollout items: thread 01a0f93f-de41-75c1-b80c-d87f9dee4b1e not found
2026-10-01T20:56:10.681106Z ERROR codex_core::session: failed to record rollout items: thread 01a0f93f-de41-75c1-b80c-d87f9dee4b1e not found
2026-10-01T20:56:10.681198Z ERROR codex_core::session: failed to record rollout items: thread 01a0f93f-de41-75c1-b80c-d87f9dee4b1e not found
2026-10-01T20:56:10.681210Z ERROR codex_core::session: failed to record rollout items: thread 01a0f93f-de41-75c1-b80c-d87f9dee4b1e not found

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Codex suba

[truncated 3140 bytes]

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem
Fixer flags `munin-node` as a likely busy-polling Perl process, but the evidence does not establish a busy loop. The captured process was sleeping (`S`), and its three `pselect6` calls waited about 1.8–2 seconds each. The 100% sample attribution is to the kernel’s `perf_ctx_enable`, not a demonstrated Perl hotspot.

## Evidence Confidence
**inferred** — profiler-only evidence; no language-level stack or reproduced application failure. The entrypoint, `script/munin-node`, delegates to `Munin::Node::Server`, which uses external `Net::Server::Fork`. Its request path blocks on input; no source-level spin is apparent. The separate `select` loop in `lib/Munin/Node/OS.pm` handles plugin output and is not shown on this daemon path.

## Proposed Subject
No source patch yet: diagnose whether the sampled waits are normal idle server behavior or whether a specific request/plugin path is consuming CPU.

## Patch Plan
- Collect a bounded process snapshot, Perl-level stack, and request/child-process state before deciding whether any code change is justified.
- If new evidence identifies an application-level cause, scope a patch to that path and explain how it accounts for the observed process state; otherwise report the diagnosis without a patch.
- No prior Fixer patch is present to improve or replace. Follow `HACKING.pod` Perl style and existing `Munin::Common::Timeout`/`Munin::Common::Logger` conventions where applicable; no Munin-local event-loop wrapper was found.
- Upstream guidance names `master` as the default integration branch. The workspace is on local `master`, but has no remote refs configured, so upstream provenance is unconfirmed.

## Risks
Changing a blocking server wait based only on this capture could introduce unnecessary CPU use or alter daemon behavior. The observed timed waits are consistent with an idle server, so avoid a speculative patch or awkward control-flow workaround.

## Validation
- First try `make` from the workspace root, then `make test` as the project test entrypoint. `make check` is not defined in the top-level Makefile. If build/test fails due to missing dependencies or generated files, record the exact command and error before considering a focused check; no focused compile is justified for this no-patch diagnosis.
- For one bounded, independent reproduction attempt, sample the process for 5 seconds with `ps` and `strace -tt -T -e pselect6`; compare CPU state and wait durations. This can test whether the captured idle-wait signal recurs, but cannot prove a Perl busy loop without a language-level stack.

## Patch Pass

Subject: Diagnose munin-node profiler signal before patching

## Commit Message
No source change. The available evidence does not establish a Munin bug: the captured process was sleeping in timed waits, and the reported hotspot is a kernel symbol. More evidence is needed before proposing a patch.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
Fixer’s capture reports `munin-node` in `pselect6`, with the process sleeping and the calls waiting about 1.8–2 seconds. The entrypoint delegates to `Munin::Node::Server`, which inherits its server loop from external `Net::Server::Fork`; its request handler blocks while reading input. The capture does not tie the kernel hotspot to a Munin code path or demonstrate a tight loop. I made no source change because the evidence does not identify a code-level cause. The expected effect of this diagnosis is to avoid a speculative fix until a Perl-level stack or other application-specific evidence identifies the responsible path.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` failed at `Build.PL` because `Module::Build` is unavailable: `Can't locate Module/Build.pm in @INC`.
- `make test` failed for the same reason before tests could run.
- `make -n check` reported `No rule to make target 'check'`.
- The bounded reproduction attempt, `ps -p 3947104 -o pid,stat,pcpu,etime,wchan,args`, found no process for the captured PID. The PID was unavailable, so I could not run the planned `strace` comparison; no independent reproduction was established.
- `perl -V:version` reported Perl `5.42.3`. Source inspection found no evidence that the runtime mishandles this workload.
- The workspace remains on local `master`, matching the documented upstream default integration branch; no remotes are configured to confirm provenance. No relevant Munin-local event-loop helper was found.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: ok

The author response matches the evidence and workspace: no source diff was produced, confidence is `inferred`, and the validation section records the build blocker and why independent tracing was unavailable. The diagnosis appropriately avoids attributing the kernel `perf_ctx_enable` samples or timed `pselect6` waits to a Munin or Perl defect.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Codex suba

[truncated 3140 bytes]

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem
Fixer flags `munin-node` as a likely busy-polling Perl process, but the evidence does not establish a busy loop. The captured process was sleeping (`S`), and its three `pselect6` calls waited about 1.8–2 seconds each. The 100% sample attribution is to the kernel’s `perf_ctx_enable`, not a demonstrated Perl hotspot.

## Evidence Confidence
**inferred** — profiler-only evidence; no language-level stack or reproduced application failure. The entrypoint, `script/munin-node`, delegates to `Munin::Node::Server`, which uses external `Net::Server::Fork`. Its request path blocks on input; no source-level spin is apparent. The separate `select` loop in `lib/Munin/Node/OS.pm` handles plugin output and is not shown on this daemon path.

## Proposed Subject
No source patch yet: diagnose whether the sampled waits are normal idle server behavior or whether a specific request/plugin path is consuming CPU.

## Patch Plan
- Collect a bounded process snapshot, Perl-level stack, and request/child-process state before deciding whether any code change is justified.
- If new evidence identifies an application-level cause, scope a patch to that path and explain how it accounts for the observed process state; otherwise report the diagnosis without a patch.
- No prior Fixer patch is present to improve or replace. Follow `HACKING.pod` Perl style and existing `Munin::Common::Timeout`/`Munin::Common::Logger` conventions where applicable; no Munin-local event-loop wrapper was found.
- Upstream guidance names `master` as the default integration branch. The workspace is on local `master`, but has no remote refs configured, so upstream provenance is unconfirmed.

## Risks
Changing a blocking server wait based only on this capture could introduce unnecessary CPU use or alter daemon behavior. The observed timed waits are consistent with an idle server, so avoid a speculative patch or awkward control-flow workaround.

## Validation
- First try `make` from the workspace root, then `make test` as the project test entrypoint. `make check` is not defined in the top-level Makefile. If build/test fails due to missing dependencies or generated files, record the exact command and error before considering a focused check; no focused compile is justified for this no-patch diagnosis.
- For one bounded, independent reproduction attempt, sample the process for 5 seconds with `ps` and `strace -tt -T -e pselect6`; compare CPU state and wait durations. This can test whether the captured idle-wait signal recurs, but cannot prove a Perl busy loop without a language-level stack.

## Patch Pass

Subject: Diagnose munin-node profiler signal before patching

## Commit Message
No source change. The available evidence does not establish a Munin bug: the captured process was sleeping in timed waits, and the reported hotspot is a kernel symbol. More evidence is needed before proposing a patch.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
Fixer’s capture reports `munin-node` in `pselect6`, with the process sleeping and the calls waiting about 1.8–2 seconds. The entrypoint delegates to `Munin::Node::Server`, which inherits its server loop from external `Net::Server::Fork`; its request handler blocks while reading input. The capture does not tie the kernel hotspot to a Munin code path or demonstrate a tight loop. I made no source change because the evidence does not identify a code-level cause. The expected effect of this diagnosis is to avoid a speculative fix until a Perl-level stack or other application-specific evidence identifies the responsible path.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` failed at `Build.PL` because `Module::Build` is unavailable: `Can't locate Module/Build.pm in @INC`.
- `make test` failed for the same reason before tests could run.
- `make -n check` reported `No rule to make target 'check'`.
- The bounded reproduction attempt, `ps -p 3947104 -o pid,stat,pcpu,etime,wchan,args`, found no process for the captured PID. The PID was unavailable, so I could not run the planned `strace` comparison; no independent reproduction was established.
- `perl -V:version` reported Perl `5.42.3`. Source inspection found no evidence that the runtime mishandles this workload.
- The workspace remains on local `master`, matching the documented upstream default integration branch; no remotes are configured to confirm provenance. No relevant Munin-local event-loop helper was found.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: ok

The author response matches the evidence and workspace: no source diff was produced, confidence is `inferred`, and the validation section records the build blocker and why independent tracing was unavailable. The diagnosis appropriately avoids attributing the kernel `perf_ctx_enable` samples or timed `pselect6` waits to a Munin or Perl defect.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Codex suba

[truncated 3140 bytes]

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem
Fixer observed `munin-node` under Perl with repeated `pselect6` calls, but the evidence does not establish a Munin busy loop. The captured calls waited about 1.8–2 seconds each, which is inconsistent with rapid busy-polling.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred — this is a profiler-only signal, not an independently reproduced application failure. The script entrypoint delegates to `Net::Server::Fork`; the inspected Munin `select()` in `Munin::Node::OS` waits without a timeout. Neither shows an obvious busy loop. Investigate the entrypoint first, then Perl/runtime and `Net::Server::Fork` only if further evidence points there.

## Proposed Subject
No source patch yet — diagnose the `munin-node` polling signal before attributing it to Munin.

## Patch Plan
- Do not propose a Munin source change from the current evidence. The `pselect6` waits do not identify the responsible loop or demonstrate excessive CPU use.
- Before editing, collect a fresh bounded trace and CPU sample from the affected process, then correlate the trace with a language-level stack or the `Net::Server::Fork` implementation.
- If a Munin-owned bug is established, target its cause and add a focused regression test. Prefer existing Munin helpers; no relevant wrapper for the listener’s polling was found. `Munin::Node::OS` has its own blocking child-pipe IO loop, but it is not an evident match for this listener trace.
- Treat this as a Munin upstream investigation, not a Debian-only workaround. `HACKING.pod` directs core bug-fix patches to `stable-2.0`; the Debian-source checkout has no configured remote, so that branch base remains to be verified before any patch. No prior Fixer patch was identified to replace.

## Risks
- Changing poll intervals or timeouts without a demonstrated Munin bug could alter listener behavior while masking a Perl, dependency, or kernel issue.
- The profiler attributes samples to a kernel symbol, and its `busy-poll` classification conflicts with the captured syscall durations.

## Validation
- From the workspace root, try `make` first, then `make check` only if that target exists; the Makefile defines `make test` (which runs `./Build test`) but no `check` target. Follow the project’s documented test flow if build setup succeeds.
- Independently sample the affected process for up to eight seconds, for example with `ps -p "$PID" -o pid,stat,pcpu,etime,wchan,args` and `timeout 8s strace -ttT -p "$PID" -e trace=pselect6`. Run this on the affected host; it is not expected to reproduce the issue from this checkout alone.
- Do not claim reproduction unless the bounded capture shows the failure. No focused leaf compile is warranted unless investigation identifies a Munin source candidate.

## Patch Pass

Subject: Diagnose munin-node polling signal before proposing a patch

## Commit Message
No source change. Fixer’s profiler flags `munin-node` as a likely busy poller, but the collected trace does not establish a Munin bug. Diagnose the signal before changing the node or its dependencies.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
Fixer observed repeated `pselect6` calls from `munin-node`, but the trace shows waits of about 1.8 and 2 seconds, while `/proc` reports the process sleeping in `poll_schedule_timeout`. Those observations do not show rapid polling or identify a Munin code loop. The sampled hot symbol, `perf_ctx_enable`, is in the kernel; the script entrypoint delegates server polling to `Net::Server::Fork`, and the inspected Munin child-pipe `select()` waits without a timeout. No source change is warranted without stronger evidence connecting the signal to a Munin-owned cause. The expected effect of this diagnosis is to avoid an unsupported behavior change and focus further investigation on the affected process and its server dependency.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` failed while running `Build.PL`: `Can't locate Module/Build.pm in @INC`.
- `make test` failed for the same missing `Module::Build` dependency.
- `perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node` passed: `syntax OK`.
- Bounded reproduction was blocked: `ps -p 3947104 -o pid,stat,pcpu,etime,wchan,args` found no such process in this environment, so the planned `timeout 8s strace -ttT -p 3947104 -e trace=pselect6` could not run. The Makefile defines no `check` target; it provides `make test`.
- The workspace remains unchanged.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: ok

The response appropriately leaves no source diff: the profiler and syscall trace do not establish a Munin-owned busy loop. It reports `inferred`, connects that conclusion to the `pselect6`, `/proc`, and entrypoint evidence, and accurately records the build, syntax-check, and reproduction blocker.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Codex suba

[truncated 3140 bytes]

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem
Fixer observed `munin-node` under Perl with repeated `pselect6` calls, but the evidence does not establish a Munin busy loop. The captured calls waited about 1.8–2 seconds each, which is inconsistent with rapid busy-polling.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred — this is a profiler-only signal, not an independently reproduced application failure. The script entrypoint delegates to `Net::Server::Fork`; the inspected Munin `select()` in `Munin::Node::OS` waits without a timeout. Neither shows an obvious busy loop. Investigate the entrypoint first, then Perl/runtime and `Net::Server::Fork` only if further evidence points there.

## Proposed Subject
No source patch yet — diagnose the `munin-node` polling signal before attributing it to Munin.

## Patch Plan
- Do not propose a Munin source change from the current evidence. The `pselect6` waits do not identify the responsible loop or demonstrate excessive CPU use.
- Before editing, collect a fresh bounded trace and CPU sample from the affected process, then correlate the trace with a language-level stack or the `Net::Server::Fork` implementation.
- If a Munin-owned bug is established, target its cause and add a focused regression test. Prefer existing Munin helpers; no relevant wrapper for the listener’s polling was found. `Munin::Node::OS` has its own blocking child-pipe IO loop, but it is not an evident match for this listener trace.
- Treat this as a Munin upstream investigation, not a Debian-only workaround. `HACKING.pod` directs core bug-fix patches to `stable-2.0`; the Debian-source checkout has no configured remote, so that branch base remains to be verified before any patch. No prior Fixer patch was identified to replace.

## Risks
- Changing poll intervals or timeouts without a demonstrated Munin bug could alter listener behavior while masking a Perl, dependency, or kernel issue.
- The profiler attributes samples to a kernel symbol, and its `busy-poll` classification conflicts with the captured syscall durations.

## Validation
- From the workspace root, try `make` first, then `make check` only if that target exists; the Makefile defines `make test` (which runs `./Build test`) but no `check` target. Follow the project’s documented test flow if build setup succeeds.
- Independently sample the affected process for up to eight seconds, for example with `ps -p "$PID" -o pid,stat,pcpu,etime,wchan,args` and `timeout 8s strace -ttT -p "$PID" -e trace=pselect6`. Run this on the affected host; it is not expected to reproduce the issue from this checkout alone.
- Do not claim reproduction unless the bounded capture shows the failure. No focused leaf compile is warranted unless investigation identifies a Munin source candidate.

## Patch Pass

Subject: Diagnose munin-node polling signal before proposing a patch

## Commit Message
No source change. Fixer’s profiler flags `munin-node` as a likely busy poller, but the collected trace does not establish a Munin bug. Diagnose the signal before changing the node or its dependencies.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
Fixer observed repeated `pselect6` calls from `munin-node`, but the trace shows waits of about 1.8 and 2 seconds, while `/proc` reports the process sleeping in `poll_schedule_timeout`. Those observations do not show rapid polling or identify a Munin code loop. The sampled hot symbol, `perf_ctx_enable`, is in the kernel; the script entrypoint delegates server polling to `Net::Server::Fork`, and the inspected Munin child-pipe `select()` waits without a timeout. No source change is warranted without stronger evidence connecting the signal to a Munin-owned cause. The expected effect of this diagnosis is to avoid an unsupported behavior change and focus further investigation on the affected process and its server dependency.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` failed while running `Build.PL`: `Can't locate Module/Build.pm in @INC`.
- `make test` failed for the same missing `Module::Build` dependency.
- `perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node` passed: `syntax OK`.
- Bounded reproduction was blocked: `ps -p 3947104 -o pid,stat,pcpu,etime,wchan,args` found no such process in this environment, so the planned `timeout 8s strace -ttT -p 3947104 -e trace=pselect6` could not run. The Makefile defines no `check` target; it provides `make test`.
- The workspace remains unchanged.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: ok

The response appropriately leaves no source diff: the profiler and syscall trace do not establish a Munin-owned busy loop. It reports `inferred`, connects that conclusion to the `pselect6`, `/proc`, and entrypoint evidence, and accurately records the build, syntax-check, and reproduction blocker.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Codex suba

[truncated 3140 bytes]

Response

## Plan Pass

Thanks—this confirms the workspace has no remotes or upstream refs, and `2989f9c Fixer baseline` is the only history entry. Debian quilt patches are present, but none is a prior Fixer patch. The plan remains a no-patch diagnosis; the project test entrypoint is `make test` or `perl Build.PL && ./Build test`.

## Patch Pass

Subject: Diagnose Munin busy-poll report without a source patch

## Commit Message
No source change. The available evidence does not establish a Munin busy-poll bug. The bundled `pselect6` calls block for seconds before timing out, which is consistent with a waiting event loop, not a tight poll.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
Fixer’s report shows `munin-node` in `select()` and attributes all sampled CPU to a kernel symbol, but the included `strace` records `pselect6` timeouts lasting about 1.8 and 2 seconds. Munin’s plugin-output reader uses `select()` with no timeout in `lib/Munin/Node/OS.pm`, so those waits fit normal blocking behavior; they do not demonstrate a busy loop. The captured PID is no longer running, and there is no evidence tying the kernel samples to a faulty Munin code path. No source change is justified; the available trace does not confirm a runaway CPU loop, and further live process or syscall evidence is needed to identify its cause.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` from the workspace root failed because `Module::Build` is missing: `Can't locate Module/Build.pm in @INC`.
- `make -n check` reported `No rule to make target 'check'`.
- Focused syntax check passed: `PERL5LIB=lib perl -T -c script/munin-node` → `syntax OK`.
- Bounded independent check: `ps -p 3947104 -o pid,stat,pcpu,etime,wchan,args` returned only the header; the captured process was unavailable for a live reproduction. No failure was reproduced.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: ok

The worktree is clean, and the response appropriately provides an inferred, no-patch diagnosis: the bundled `pselect6` calls block for seconds, so the evidence does not establish a Munin busy-poll bug. The validation reports the `make` blocker, confirms `check` is unavailable, and records the syntax check and unsuccessful live-process reproduction attempt. No actionable review findings.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Codex suba

[truncated 3140 bytes]

Response

## Plan Pass

Thanks—this confirms the workspace has no remotes or upstream refs, and `2989f9c Fixer baseline` is the only history entry. Debian quilt patches are present, but none is a prior Fixer patch. The plan remains a no-patch diagnosis; the project test entrypoint is `make test` or `perl Build.PL && ./Build test`.

## Patch Pass

Subject: Diagnose Munin busy-poll report without a source patch

## Commit Message
No source change. The available evidence does not establish a Munin busy-poll bug. The bundled `pselect6` calls block for seconds before timing out, which is consistent with a waiting event loop, not a tight poll.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
Fixer’s report shows `munin-node` in `select()` and attributes all sampled CPU to a kernel symbol, but the included `strace` records `pselect6` timeouts lasting about 1.8 and 2 seconds. Munin’s plugin-output reader uses `select()` with no timeout in `lib/Munin/Node/OS.pm`, so those waits fit normal blocking behavior; they do not demonstrate a busy loop. The captured PID is no longer running, and there is no evidence tying the kernel samples to a faulty Munin code path. No source change is justified; the available trace does not confirm a runaway CPU loop, and further live process or syscall evidence is needed to identify its cause.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` from the workspace root failed because `Module::Build` is missing: `Can't locate Module/Build.pm in @INC`.
- `make -n check` reported `No rule to make target 'check'`.
- Focused syntax check passed: `PERL5LIB=lib perl -T -c script/munin-node` → `syntax OK`.
- Bounded independent check: `ps -p 3947104 -o pid,stat,pcpu,etime,wchan,args` returned only the header; the captured process was unavailable for a live reproduction. No failure was reproduced.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: ok

The worktree is clean, and the response appropriately provides an inferred, no-patch diagnosis: the bundled `pselect6` calls block for seconds, so the evidence does not establish a Munin busy-poll bug. The validation reports the `make` blocker, confirms `check` is unavailable, and records the syntax check and unsuccessful live-process reproduction attempt. No actionable review findings.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Codex suba

[truncated 3140 bytes]

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem
- Fixer observed `munin-node` with repeated `pselect6` timeouts, but the profiler-only signal does not establish a runaway loop. The trace shows timed waits of roughly 1.8–2 seconds, and the sampled `perf_ctx_enable` kernel frames do not identify application-level CPU work.
- `script/munin-node` delegates the server loop to `Munin::Node::Server`; the installed `Net::Server::Fork` listener intentionally polls with a two-second timeout. No source change is justified by this evidence alone.

## Evidence Confidence
- inferred

## Proposed Subject
- No patch proposed: diagnose the sampled waits as consistent with normal idle listener polling; request stronger evidence before changing source.

## Patch Plan
- Do not edit source in this pass. Before considering a patch, collect a language-level stack or trace that identifies whether the samples came from the listener parent or a request child, and check CPU use alongside syscall timing. Only pursue a source fix if that evidence ties active CPU consumption to Munin code.
- Follow the upstream `master` integration branch for any eventual public patch; `HACKING.pod` reserves `stable-2.0` for bug fixes. Use local Perl conventions (`strict`, `warnings`, taint-safe style, and existing file style). No relevant local poll/IO helper was found; the listener wait is in `Net::Server::Fork`.
- No prior Fixer source patch exists to improve or replace. If new evidence shows a bug, prefer a bounded, direct change over avoidable `goto` or speculative polling changes.

## Risks
- Changing listener polling based on this trace could disrupt normal idle behavior without addressing a demonstrated defect.
- The independent source check found that the listener’s two-second `can_read` timeout explains the captured waits; client handling and plugin execution have separate blocking and timeout paths.
- This is an indirect profiler signal, not a confirmed user-visible failure. Keep the maintainer-facing report focused on the observed syscalls and the evidence still needed.

## Validation
- No patch is planned, so no test result is claimed. If investigation proceeds, try `make` from the workspace root first, then `make check` if available; the project documents `make`/`make build` and `make test` (`Build.PL` followed by `./Build test`), but has no dedicated `munin-node` TAP file.
- Make one bounded reproduction attempt: inspect the running daemon’s PID, CPU, wait channel, and arguments, then capture a short syscall trace to distinguish idle listener timeouts from a busy request child. Do not call the issue reproduced unless that attempt demonstrates sustained CPU use attributable to the relevant code.

## Patch Pass

Subject: Diagnose munin-node poll signal without source changes

## Commit Message
No source change. The captured trace is consistent with `munin-node`’s listener waiting for connections, not enough to establish a runaway loop. More process-level evidence is needed before proposing a fix.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
Fixer recorded three `pselect6` calls for PID `3947104`, each timing out after roughly two seconds. The `/proc` snapshot says the process was sleeping, and the kernel stack ends in `poll_schedule_timeout`; the profile’s 100% `perf_ctx_enable` sample does not show application-level CPU work. The `script/munin-node` entrypoint delegates serving to `Munin::Node::Server`, whose `Net::Server::Fork` listener uses a two-second readiness wait. That makes normal idle polling a plausible explanation, not a confirmed source bug. I made no source change because this evidence does not justify one. The expected effect of this diagnosis is to avoid changing normal listener behavior; a fresh CPU/process trace would be needed to identify any actual busy loop.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` from the workspace root failed because `Build.PL` could not load `Module/Build.pm`.
- `make check` is unavailable; the Makefile has no `check` target.
- `perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node` passed.
- The bounded reproduction check, `ps -p 3947104 -o pid,stat,pcpu,etime,wchan:32,args`, found no such process; `/proc/3947104` was absent. The original signal therefore could not be independently reproduced.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: ok

The response correctly treats the profiler/strace signal as indirect, proposes no source changes, and reports `inferred` confidence. The workspace has no source diff. It connects the timed `pselect6` waits and sleeping `/proc` state to normal listener polling without claiming a confirmed bug or inventing a reproducer. Validation names the `make` dependency failure, unavailable `make check`, successful Perl syntax check, and why reproduction was blocked.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Codex suba

[truncated 3140 bytes]

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem
- Fixer observed `munin-node` with repeated `pselect6` timeouts, but the profiler-only signal does not establish a runaway loop. The trace shows timed waits of roughly 1.8–2 seconds, and the sampled `perf_ctx_enable` kernel frames do not identify application-level CPU work.
- `script/munin-node` delegates the server loop to `Munin::Node::Server`; the installed `Net::Server::Fork` listener intentionally polls with a two-second timeout. No source change is justified by this evidence alone.

## Evidence Confidence
- inferred

## Proposed Subject
- No patch proposed: diagnose the sampled waits as consistent with normal idle listener polling; request stronger evidence before changing source.

## Patch Plan
- Do not edit source in this pass. Before considering a patch, collect a language-level stack or trace that identifies whether the samples came from the listener parent or a request child, and check CPU use alongside syscall timing. Only pursue a source fix if that evidence ties active CPU consumption to Munin code.
- Follow the upstream `master` integration branch for any eventual public patch; `HACKING.pod` reserves `stable-2.0` for bug fixes. Use local Perl conventions (`strict`, `warnings`, taint-safe style, and existing file style). No relevant local poll/IO helper was found; the listener wait is in `Net::Server::Fork`.
- No prior Fixer source patch exists to improve or replace. If new evidence shows a bug, prefer a bounded, direct change over avoidable `goto` or speculative polling changes.

## Risks
- Changing listener polling based on this trace could disrupt normal idle behavior without addressing a demonstrated defect.
- The independent source check found that the listener’s two-second `can_read` timeout explains the captured waits; client handling and plugin execution have separate blocking and timeout paths.
- This is an indirect profiler signal, not a confirmed user-visible failure. Keep the maintainer-facing report focused on the observed syscalls and the evidence still needed.

## Validation
- No patch is planned, so no test result is claimed. If investigation proceeds, try `make` from the workspace root first, then `make check` if available; the project documents `make`/`make build` and `make test` (`Build.PL` followed by `./Build test`), but has no dedicated `munin-node` TAP file.
- Make one bounded reproduction attempt: inspect the running daemon’s PID, CPU, wait channel, and arguments, then capture a short syscall trace to distinguish idle listener timeouts from a busy request child. Do not call the issue reproduced unless that attempt demonstrates sustained CPU use attributable to the relevant code.

## Patch Pass

Subject: Diagnose munin-node poll signal without source changes

## Commit Message
No source change. The captured trace is consistent with `munin-node`’s listener waiting for connections, not enough to establish a runaway loop. More process-level evidence is needed before proposing a fix.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
Fixer recorded three `pselect6` calls for PID `3947104`, each timing out after roughly two seconds. The `/proc` snapshot says the process was sleeping, and the kernel stack ends in `poll_schedule_timeout`; the profile’s 100% `perf_ctx_enable` sample does not show application-level CPU work. The `script/munin-node` entrypoint delegates serving to `Munin::Node::Server`, whose `Net::Server::Fork` listener uses a two-second readiness wait. That makes normal idle polling a plausible explanation, not a confirmed source bug. I made no source change because this evidence does not justify one. The expected effect of this diagnosis is to avoid changing normal listener behavior; a fresh CPU/process trace would be needed to identify any actual busy loop.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` from the workspace root failed because `Build.PL` could not load `Module/Build.pm`.
- `make check` is unavailable; the Makefile has no `check` target.
- `perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node` passed.
- The bounded reproduction check, `ps -p 3947104 -o pid,stat,pcpu,etime,wchan:32,args`, found no such process; `/proc/3947104` was absent. The original signal therefore could not be independently reproduced.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: ok

The response correctly treats the profiler/strace signal as indirect, proposes no source changes, and reports `inferred` confidence. The workspace has no source diff. It connects the timed `pselect6` waits and sleeping `/proc` state to normal listener polling without claiming a confirmed bug or inventing a reproducer. Validation names the `make` dependency failure, unavailable `make check`, successful Perl syntax check, and why reproduction was blocked.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Codex suba

[truncated 15284 bytes]

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem
Fixer flagged `/usr/sbin/munin-node` as a likely busy poll, but the captured evidence does not identify a Munin source defect: it records three `pselect6` calls that timed out, a sleeping process, and unresolved native frames. `munin-node` delegates its listener loop to `Net::Server::Fork`; the evidence does not tie the samples to a specific Munin loop.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred. The process and poll-family calls were observed, but the “busy-poll” diagnosis is not supported by the timeout trace, and no Perl-level stack or reproducer connects the signal to faulty application behavior.

## Proposed Subject
No source patch planned; report that the available evidence is insufficient to localize a Munin bug.

## Patch Plan
- Don’t change Munin or Perl based on this profile alone; no prior Fixer patch is evidenced to replace.
- Before considering a patch, collect a language-level trace or identify the file descriptor and call path associated with `pselect6`, then reproduce the sustained CPU signal.
- Follow `HACKING.pod`’s Perl conventions (`strict`, `warnings`, and the surrounding file’s style). No relevant in-repo helper for the delegated listener loop was found; the server loop is provided by `Net::Server::Fork`. Avoid proposing control-flow changes without a localized defect.
- `HACKING.pod` directs bug fixes to `stable-2.0`; `README.rst` also names `master` as a pull-request base. With no patch, no merge base is proposed.

## Risks
A speculative event-loop change could alter server behavior without addressing the observed signal. Runtime changes are also unsupported: the bundle does not show Perl mishandling Munin’s workload.

## Validation
- From the workspace root, try `make` first as the project build entrypoint, then `make check` if available. If either fails due to missing dependencies or generated files, record the exact command and failure reason; use the narrowest reproducible check only if a source change is later justified.
- Make one bounded, independent reproduction attempt using a test node and a short trace that captures the Perl-level call path and descriptor. The available bundle does not establish a safe reproducer for the claimed high CPU condition; a normal blocking `pselect` timeout or idle `list` query would not prove the failure.
- No build, test, or reproduction command was run in this planning-only pass.

## Patch Pass

Subject: Diagnose unsupported munin-node busy-poll report

## Commit Message
No source changes. The available profile does not establish a Munin busy loop: it shows three `pselect6` calls timing out, while the Perl process was reported sleeping. `munin-node` delegates its listener loop to `Net::Server::Fork`, and the captured native stack does not identify the relevant Perl call path. A speculative code change would not be upstream-ready.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
Fixer collected a profile attributing 100% of sampled hot-path time to the kernel symbol `perf_ctx_enable`, plus three `pselect6` calls that timed out while waiting. The process command identifies the `munin-node` script, but the evidence does not show that Munin’s listener or plugin-handling code is spinning; the server loop is delegated to `Net::Server::Fork`, and there is no Perl-level stack tying the kernel samples to a Munin code path. I made no code change because the evidence does not establish a source-level cause or a failure a patch could safely address. The next useful evidence would be a Perl-level trace or descriptor mapping captured alongside the sustained CPU signal.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` from the workspace root failed because `Module::Build` is missing: `Can't locate Module/Build.pm`; `make` exited with “No rule to make target `Build`.”
- `make -n check` reported “No rule to make target `check`”; the Makefile has no `check` target.
- Focused fallback `perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node` passed: `script/munin-node syntax OK`.
- Attempted a bounded `strace` comparison of Perl `select` waits; `strace` could not run because ptrace was denied (`PTRACE_TRACEME: Operation not permitted`). This did not reproduce the reported CPU signal. No source changes or generated artifacts remain in the workspace.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: fix-needed

## Findings
- `patch-output.txt` says all three `pselect6` calls timed out, but the third trace line is truncated before its result in `evidence.json`. Limit the claim to the first two timeouts; the bundle separately reports three calls.
- Label tests as not run. The root `make` failure and focused syntax check are reported, but no project test ran. The no-patch diagnosis is otherwise justified: the evidence does not localize a Munin source defect, and the workspace contains no source diff.

## Refinement Pass 1

Subject: Report insufficient evidence for munin-node busy-poll fix

## Commit Message
No source changes. This refinement corrects the timeout count and clarifies that project tests were not run. The available evidence still does not localize a Munin source defect.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
Fixer recorded a kernel profile led by `perf_ctx_enable` and three `pselect6` calls; only the first two captured calls show timeout results, while the third trace line is truncated. The process was reported sleeping at capture time, and the native stack does not identify a Munin-level call path. `munin-node` delegates its listener loop to `Net::Server::Fork`; the in-repo `select` in `Munin::Node::OS` waits for plugin output, but the evidence does not tie that code to the profile. I made no source change because the signal does not establish a source-level cause. This avoids presenting a speculative fix as an upstream bug fix.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` from the workspace root failed because `Module::Build` is missing (`Can't locate Module/Build.pm`); the Makefile then reported no rule to make target `Build`.
- `make -n check` reported no rule to make target `check`.
- Focused fallback `perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node` passed (`syntax OK`). Project tests were not run.
- The bounded `strace` comparison did not run: ptrace was denied (`PTRACE_TRACEME: Operation not permitted`). It did not reproduce the reported CPU signal.

## Review Pass 2

RESULT: ok

The refinement addresses the review findings: it distinguishes the two confirmed timeouts from the truncated third call, and explicitly states that project tests were not run. The workspace has no source diff; the no-patch diagnosis remains appropriately cautious for the indirect evidence.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Codex suba

[truncated 15284 bytes]

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem
Fixer flagged `/usr/sbin/munin-node` as a likely busy poll, but the captured evidence does not identify a Munin source defect: it records three `pselect6` calls that timed out, a sleeping process, and unresolved native frames. `munin-node` delegates its listener loop to `Net::Server::Fork`; the evidence does not tie the samples to a specific Munin loop.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred. The process and poll-family calls were observed, but the “busy-poll” diagnosis is not supported by the timeout trace, and no Perl-level stack or reproducer connects the signal to faulty application behavior.

## Proposed Subject
No source patch planned; report that the available evidence is insufficient to localize a Munin bug.

## Patch Plan
- Don’t change Munin or Perl based on this profile alone; no prior Fixer patch is evidenced to replace.
- Before considering a patch, collect a language-level trace or identify the file descriptor and call path associated with `pselect6`, then reproduce the sustained CPU signal.
- Follow `HACKING.pod`’s Perl conventions (`strict`, `warnings`, and the surrounding file’s style). No relevant in-repo helper for the delegated listener loop was found; the server loop is provided by `Net::Server::Fork`. Avoid proposing control-flow changes without a localized defect.
- `HACKING.pod` directs bug fixes to `stable-2.0`; `README.rst` also names `master` as a pull-request base. With no patch, no merge base is proposed.

## Risks
A speculative event-loop change could alter server behavior without addressing the observed signal. Runtime changes are also unsupported: the bundle does not show Perl mishandling Munin’s workload.

## Validation
- From the workspace root, try `make` first as the project build entrypoint, then `make check` if available. If either fails due to missing dependencies or generated files, record the exact command and failure reason; use the narrowest reproducible check only if a source change is later justified.
- Make one bounded, independent reproduction attempt using a test node and a short trace that captures the Perl-level call path and descriptor. The available bundle does not establish a safe reproducer for the claimed high CPU condition; a normal blocking `pselect` timeout or idle `list` query would not prove the failure.
- No build, test, or reproduction command was run in this planning-only pass.

## Patch Pass

Subject: Diagnose unsupported munin-node busy-poll report

## Commit Message
No source changes. The available profile does not establish a Munin busy loop: it shows three `pselect6` calls timing out, while the Perl process was reported sleeping. `munin-node` delegates its listener loop to `Net::Server::Fork`, and the captured native stack does not identify the relevant Perl call path. A speculative code change would not be upstream-ready.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
Fixer collected a profile attributing 100% of sampled hot-path time to the kernel symbol `perf_ctx_enable`, plus three `pselect6` calls that timed out while waiting. The process command identifies the `munin-node` script, but the evidence does not show that Munin’s listener or plugin-handling code is spinning; the server loop is delegated to `Net::Server::Fork`, and there is no Perl-level stack tying the kernel samples to a Munin code path. I made no code change because the evidence does not establish a source-level cause or a failure a patch could safely address. The next useful evidence would be a Perl-level trace or descriptor mapping captured alongside the sustained CPU signal.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` from the workspace root failed because `Module::Build` is missing: `Can't locate Module/Build.pm`; `make` exited with “No rule to make target `Build`.”
- `make -n check` reported “No rule to make target `check`”; the Makefile has no `check` target.
- Focused fallback `perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node` passed: `script/munin-node syntax OK`.
- Attempted a bounded `strace` comparison of Perl `select` waits; `strace` could not run because ptrace was denied (`PTRACE_TRACEME: Operation not permitted`). This did not reproduce the reported CPU signal. No source changes or generated artifacts remain in the workspace.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: fix-needed

## Findings
- `patch-output.txt` says all three `pselect6` calls timed out, but the third trace line is truncated before its result in `evidence.json`. Limit the claim to the first two timeouts; the bundle separately reports three calls.
- Label tests as not run. The root `make` failure and focused syntax check are reported, but no project test ran. The no-patch diagnosis is otherwise justified: the evidence does not localize a Munin source defect, and the workspace contains no source diff.

## Refinement Pass 1

Subject: Report insufficient evidence for munin-node busy-poll fix

## Commit Message
No source changes. This refinement corrects the timeout count and clarifies that project tests were not run. The available evidence still does not localize a Munin source defect.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
Fixer recorded a kernel profile led by `perf_ctx_enable` and three `pselect6` calls; only the first two captured calls show timeout results, while the third trace line is truncated. The process was reported sleeping at capture time, and the native stack does not identify a Munin-level call path. `munin-node` delegates its listener loop to `Net::Server::Fork`; the in-repo `select` in `Munin::Node::OS` waits for plugin output, but the evidence does not tie that code to the profile. I made no source change because the signal does not establish a source-level cause. This avoids presenting a speculative fix as an upstream bug fix.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` from the workspace root failed because `Module::Build` is missing (`Can't locate Module/Build.pm`); the Makefile then reported no rule to make target `Build`.
- `make -n check` reported no rule to make target `check`.
- Focused fallback `perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node` passed (`syntax OK`). Project tests were not run.
- The bounded `strace` comparison did not run: ptrace was denied (`PTRACE_TRACEME: Operation not permitted`). It did not reproduce the reported CPU signal.

## Review Pass 2

RESULT: ok

The refinement addresses the review findings: it distinguishes the two confirmed timeouts from the truncated third call, and explicitly states that project tests were not run. The workspace has no source diff; the no-patch diagnosis remains appropriately cautious for the indirect evidence.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

Response

## Plan Pass



## Workflow Note

{"type":"item.completed","item":{"id":"item_15","type":"reasoning","text":"**Collecting extra evidence**\n**Checking project validation**\n**Reviewing timeout helpers**"}}
{"type":"error","message":"Reconnecting... 1/5 (stream disconnected before completion: Upstream websocket closed before response.completed: Upstream websocket receive failed)"}
{"type":"error","message":"Reconnecting... 2/5 (unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: 04cd1f22-d893-4afa-bded-bd52d39013b0)"}
{"type":"error","message":"Reconnecting... 3/5 (unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: 12741019-3139-4e2b-9c0c-55452eeeee87)"}
{"type":"error","message":"Reconnecting... 4/5 (unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: 7079c512-3a1f-4c6e-a445-b96c23ed6281)"}
{"type":"error","message":"Reconnecting... 5/5 (unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: 1e10be0f-ee7f-4eda-a84b-c70b050b65b1)"}
{"type":"error","message":"unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: 9d07a061-3f0d-4d3a-9ef8-e4ab78c39d58"}
{"type":"turn.failed","error":{"message":"unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: 9d07a061-3f0d-4d3a-9ef8-e4ab78c39d58"}}

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

Response

## Plan Pass



## Workflow Note

{"type":"item.completed","item":{"id":"item_15","type":"reasoning","text":"**Checking OS.pm, server top**"}}
{"type":"error","message":"Reconnecting... 1/5 (stream disconnected before completion: Upstream websocket closed before response.completed: Upstream websocket receive failed)"}
{"type":"error","message":"Reconnecting... 2/5 (unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: 3290063f-dde3-4250-84d7-89046dde214d)"}
{"type":"error","message":"Reconnecting... 3/5 (unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: 87e33e4f-89f5-421a-b2ac-269d9c67cf40)"}
{"type":"error","message":"Reconnecting... 4/5 (unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: d5facf22-298e-435f-9d07-89f4c6fa7590)"}
{"type":"error","message":"Reconnecting... 5/5 (unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: 41b96490-f4c3-4176-b7a6-378a04d70531)"}
{"type":"error","message":"unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: 031cd514-1a9b-40a3-9d9a-99e5d3fbc9ab"}
{"type":"turn.failed","error":{"message":"unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: 031cd514-1a9b-40a3-9d9a-99e5d3fbc9ab"}}

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Codex suba

[truncated 3140 bytes]

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem
- Fixer observed high CPU for the Perl process running `munin-node`, but the evidence does not establish a busy loop. Its three `pselect6` calls timed out after roughly two seconds each, consistent with the server’s normal listener wait. The sampled hot frame is in the kernel, not Munin code.

## Evidence Confidence
- **inferred** — The trace is profiler-only and does not tie CPU use to a Munin source defect. It does not justify a source patch or a claim that the issue was reproduced.

## Proposed Subject
- No patch proposed; diagnose the CPU finding before changing source.

## Patch Plan
- Stop before editing. Inspect the entrypoint and server event loop first; the evidence gap is whether `munin-node` is actually spinning or whether the kernel sample reflects ordinary timed waiting.
- The repository entrypoint is `script/munin-node`; it starts `Munin::Node::Server`, which inherits `Net::Server::Fork`. The distro path in the evidence, `/usr/sbin/munin-node`, differs from the scout’s host path, `/usr/bin/munin-node`.
- Follow `CONTRIBUTING.md` and `HACKING.pod`; the code has local process/timeout and pipe-IO patterns in `Munin::Node::OS`, but no helper relevant to the server’s listener wait was identified.
- Upstream guidance distinguishes stable bug fixes from development work; if later evidence supports a fix, confirm the defect and target `stable-2.0` per `HACKING.pod`, rather than assuming `master`.
- No prior Fixer patch was found to improve or replace. Avoid speculative loop changes or awkward control flow.

## Risks
- Changing an apparently intentional timed listener wait without reproducing excess CPU could introduce server behavior regressions.
- A bounded scout found idle clients may occupy forked children until the configured global timeout, but did not establish that as a defect or connect it to the observed CPU signal.

## Validation
- No reproduction was run, so this plan does not claim `reproduced`. Safely reproduce by running a disposable foreground node bound to loopback on a temporary port, connecting without sending protocol data, and observing CPU plus process state; compare idle behavior with the trace before proposing any change.
- If a patch becomes justified, first run project-level `make` from the workspace root, then `make check` only if that target exists; this checkout exposes `make build` and `make test`, not `check`. If project-level build fails due to missing dependencies or generated files, record the exact command and error before trying a focused Perl compile/test.
- For a justified node-loop change, use the repository’s `dev_scripts/start_munin-node` / stop helpers and the relevant Munin node tests; the test suite entrypoint is `make test`.

## Patch Pass

Subject: Diagnose munin-node CPU finding before proposing a patch

## Commit Message
No source change. The available evidence does not identify a Munin code defect to fix.

## Evidence Confidence
observed

## Issue Connection
Fixer observed a high-CPU signal for the Perl process running `munin-node`, with samples attributed to the kernel’s `perf_ctx_enable` and a `pselect6` stack. However, the captured calls timed out after about two seconds each, and `/proc` reported the process as sleeping. That evidence is consistent with the listener waiting for connections, not proof of a busy loop in Munin or Perl. I made no code change because the trace does not connect the CPU signal to a source-level cause. The independent reproduction attempt did not establish the reported behavior.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` failed at `Build.PL` because `Module::Build` is unavailable: `Can't locate Module/Build.pm in @INC`.
- `make test` hit the same missing dependency. `make check` is not defined in this checkout.
- `perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node` and `perl -Ilib -c lib/Munin/Node/Server.pm` both passed.
- Bounded smoke attempt: `timeout 5s perl -T -Ilib script/munin-node --foreground --config t/config/munin-node.conf` exited with status 2 because the script changes directory to `/` and the relative config path was then unavailable. I did not retry with an absolute config because starting the node could bind its default listener port; reproducing the signal safely remains unresolved.
- The checkout is on `master`. `CONTRIBUTING.md` points to `HACKING.pod`; that guide says bug fixes should target `stable-2.0`. No relevant server listener helper was found; `Munin::Node::OS` contains helpers for plugin child-process and pipe handling, which do not fit this listener diagnosis.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: ok

The generated response is a no-patch diagnosis, and the worktree has no source diff. Its `observed` confidence matches Fixer’s direct trace evidence while acknowledging that the behavior was not independently reproduced. It connects the high-CPU signal to the sleeping process and timed-out `pselect6` calls without claiming a Munin code defect. Validation reports the `Module::Build` blocker, the unavailable `check` target, and the bounded smoke attempt’s failure. No actionable review findings.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Codex suba

[truncated 3140 bytes]

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem
- Fixer observed high CPU for the Perl process running `munin-node`, but the evidence does not establish a busy loop. Its three `pselect6` calls timed out after roughly two seconds each, consistent with the server’s normal listener wait. The sampled hot frame is in the kernel, not Munin code.

## Evidence Confidence
- **inferred** — The trace is profiler-only and does not tie CPU use to a Munin source defect. It does not justify a source patch or a claim that the issue was reproduced.

## Proposed Subject
- No patch proposed; diagnose the CPU finding before changing source.

## Patch Plan
- Stop before editing. Inspect the entrypoint and server event loop first; the evidence gap is whether `munin-node` is actually spinning or whether the kernel sample reflects ordinary timed waiting.
- The repository entrypoint is `script/munin-node`; it starts `Munin::Node::Server`, which inherits `Net::Server::Fork`. The distro path in the evidence, `/usr/sbin/munin-node`, differs from the scout’s host path, `/usr/bin/munin-node`.
- Follow `CONTRIBUTING.md` and `HACKING.pod`; the code has local process/timeout and pipe-IO patterns in `Munin::Node::OS`, but no helper relevant to the server’s listener wait was identified.
- Upstream guidance distinguishes stable bug fixes from development work; if later evidence supports a fix, confirm the defect and target `stable-2.0` per `HACKING.pod`, rather than assuming `master`.
- No prior Fixer patch was found to improve or replace. Avoid speculative loop changes or awkward control flow.

## Risks
- Changing an apparently intentional timed listener wait without reproducing excess CPU could introduce server behavior regressions.
- A bounded scout found idle clients may occupy forked children until the configured global timeout, but did not establish that as a defect or connect it to the observed CPU signal.

## Validation
- No reproduction was run, so this plan does not claim `reproduced`. Safely reproduce by running a disposable foreground node bound to loopback on a temporary port, connecting without sending protocol data, and observing CPU plus process state; compare idle behavior with the trace before proposing any change.
- If a patch becomes justified, first run project-level `make` from the workspace root, then `make check` only if that target exists; this checkout exposes `make build` and `make test`, not `check`. If project-level build fails due to missing dependencies or generated files, record the exact command and error before trying a focused Perl compile/test.
- For a justified node-loop change, use the repository’s `dev_scripts/start_munin-node` / stop helpers and the relevant Munin node tests; the test suite entrypoint is `make test`.

## Patch Pass

Subject: Diagnose munin-node CPU finding before proposing a patch

## Commit Message
No source change. The available evidence does not identify a Munin code defect to fix.

## Evidence Confidence
observed

## Issue Connection
Fixer observed a high-CPU signal for the Perl process running `munin-node`, with samples attributed to the kernel’s `perf_ctx_enable` and a `pselect6` stack. However, the captured calls timed out after about two seconds each, and `/proc` reported the process as sleeping. That evidence is consistent with the listener waiting for connections, not proof of a busy loop in Munin or Perl. I made no code change because the trace does not connect the CPU signal to a source-level cause. The independent reproduction attempt did not establish the reported behavior.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` failed at `Build.PL` because `Module::Build` is unavailable: `Can't locate Module/Build.pm in @INC`.
- `make test` hit the same missing dependency. `make check` is not defined in this checkout.
- `perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node` and `perl -Ilib -c lib/Munin/Node/Server.pm` both passed.
- Bounded smoke attempt: `timeout 5s perl -T -Ilib script/munin-node --foreground --config t/config/munin-node.conf` exited with status 2 because the script changes directory to `/` and the relative config path was then unavailable. I did not retry with an absolute config because starting the node could bind its default listener port; reproducing the signal safely remains unresolved.
- The checkout is on `master`. `CONTRIBUTING.md` points to `HACKING.pod`; that guide says bug fixes should target `stable-2.0`. No relevant server listener helper was found; `Munin::Node::OS` contains helpers for plugin child-process and pipe handling, which do not fit this listener diagnosis.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: ok

The generated response is a no-patch diagnosis, and the worktree has no source diff. Its `observed` confidence matches Fixer’s direct trace evidence while acknowledging that the behavior was not independently reproduced. It connects the high-CPU signal to the sleeping process and timed-out `pselect6` calls without claiming a Munin code defect. Validation reports the `Module::Build` blocker, the unavailable `check` target, and the bounded smoke attempt’s failure. No actionable review findings.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Codex suba

[truncated 3140 bytes]

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem
- Fixer observed `munin-node` in `pselect6` with timeout calls; the available trace does not establish a busy loop or identify a faulty code path.
- The script entrypoint delegates server lifecycle to `Net::Server::Fork`. The repository’s `select()` loop in `lib/Munin/Node/OS.pm` drains plugin pipes and is separate from idle network handling. Blocking reads and sleeps are consistent with an idle daemon.

## Evidence Confidence
- **inferred**
- Treat this as a no-patch diagnosis for now. Before considering a source patch, collect a language-level stack or trace tied to the observed process and reproduce sustained CPU use while ruling out expected blocking in `Net::Server::Fork` or plugin-pipe handling. Current evidence does not prove a Munin source bug.

## Proposed Subject
- No source patch proposed; diagnose whether this is expected idle blocking or a reproducible CPU-consuming path.

## Patch Plan
- Do not change source based on the current profiler-only evidence.
- If follow-up evidence identifies a Munin-owned loop, patch that path narrowly and add a regression test that demonstrates the failure.
- Follow `CONTRIBUTING.md` and `HACKING.pod`: use the file’s existing style, strict/warnings conventions, and present-tense imperative commit subject. Prepare any upstream-facing patch against `master`; local refs only show a Fixer baseline, so the upstream default branch could not be independently confirmed.
- No relevant shared select/event-loop helper was found; the observed server lifecycle is delegated to `Net::Server::Fork`. No prior Fixer patch affecting these files was found. Avoid introducing control-flow workarounds such as `goto` without a demonstrated need.

## Risks
- Changing timeout, polling, or daemon behavior without a reproducer could alter normal connection and plugin semantics while failing to address the reported signal.
- The profile attributes samples to a kernel symbol; the trace’s timed `pselect6` calls alone do not show sustained CPU consumption by Munin.

## Validation
- Before any focused compile or smoke check, try project-level `make` from the workspace root, then `make check` if available. The Makefile advertises `build` and `test`, not `check`; if these commands fail for missing dependencies or generated files, record the exact command and failure, then try `make test` as the narrow project test entrypoint.
- Make one bounded, safe reproduction attempt: run a short `strace` capture of the same `munin-node --foreground` idle scenario and check whether timed `pselect6` waits coincide with sustained CPU use. Do not claim reproduction unless that command demonstrates the reported failure.
- If no Munin-owned failure is demonstrated, stop at the diagnosis; do not report a focused leaf compile as a substitute for reproducing the issue.

## Patch Pass

Subject: Diagnose Munin node poll signal before changing source

## Commit Message
No source change. The available evidence does not identify a Munin bug that can be safely patched.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
Fixer’s evidence reports 100% of sampled CPU passing through the kernel symbol `perf_ctx_enable`, and captures three `pselect6` calls timing out after roughly 1.8–2 seconds. The `/proc` snapshot marks the process as sleeping, and its wait channel is `poll_schedule_timeout`. Those timed waits are not evidence of rapid polling; they are consistent with a process waiting for I/O. The Perl entrypoint `script/munin-node` delegates server handling to `Net::Server::Fork`; the repository’s `select()` loop in `lib/Munin/Node/OS.pm` handles plugin output pipes and is not shown to be involved. I made no source change because the trace does not connect the signal to a Munin code path. The sampled PID is no longer present, so this behavior could not be independently reproduced. A live trace and language-level stack tied to the affected process are needed before proposing a patch.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` — blocked because `Build.PL` cannot find `Module/Build.pm`.
- `make check` — unavailable: the Makefile has no `check` target.
- `perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node` — passed (`syntax OK`).
- Reproduction attempt: `ps -p 3947104 ...` found no process for the PID in the evidence. Although `strace` is installed, tracing that expired process was not possible; I did not start a replacement daemon because that would not reproduce the collected signal.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: ok

The first pass makes no source changes, appropriately classifies the evidence as `inferred`, and explains why the timed `pselect6` calls do not establish a Munin busy loop. The build blocker and syntax check are reported; no workspace diff is present.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Codex suba

[truncated 3140 bytes]

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem
- Fixer observed `munin-node` in `pselect6` with timeout calls; the available trace does not establish a busy loop or identify a faulty code path.
- The script entrypoint delegates server lifecycle to `Net::Server::Fork`. The repository’s `select()` loop in `lib/Munin/Node/OS.pm` drains plugin pipes and is separate from idle network handling. Blocking reads and sleeps are consistent with an idle daemon.

## Evidence Confidence
- **inferred**
- Treat this as a no-patch diagnosis for now. Before considering a source patch, collect a language-level stack or trace tied to the observed process and reproduce sustained CPU use while ruling out expected blocking in `Net::Server::Fork` or plugin-pipe handling. Current evidence does not prove a Munin source bug.

## Proposed Subject
- No source patch proposed; diagnose whether this is expected idle blocking or a reproducible CPU-consuming path.

## Patch Plan
- Do not change source based on the current profiler-only evidence.
- If follow-up evidence identifies a Munin-owned loop, patch that path narrowly and add a regression test that demonstrates the failure.
- Follow `CONTRIBUTING.md` and `HACKING.pod`: use the file’s existing style, strict/warnings conventions, and present-tense imperative commit subject. Prepare any upstream-facing patch against `master`; local refs only show a Fixer baseline, so the upstream default branch could not be independently confirmed.
- No relevant shared select/event-loop helper was found; the observed server lifecycle is delegated to `Net::Server::Fork`. No prior Fixer patch affecting these files was found. Avoid introducing control-flow workarounds such as `goto` without a demonstrated need.

## Risks
- Changing timeout, polling, or daemon behavior without a reproducer could alter normal connection and plugin semantics while failing to address the reported signal.
- The profile attributes samples to a kernel symbol; the trace’s timed `pselect6` calls alone do not show sustained CPU consumption by Munin.

## Validation
- Before any focused compile or smoke check, try project-level `make` from the workspace root, then `make check` if available. The Makefile advertises `build` and `test`, not `check`; if these commands fail for missing dependencies or generated files, record the exact command and failure, then try `make test` as the narrow project test entrypoint.
- Make one bounded, safe reproduction attempt: run a short `strace` capture of the same `munin-node --foreground` idle scenario and check whether timed `pselect6` waits coincide with sustained CPU use. Do not claim reproduction unless that command demonstrates the reported failure.
- If no Munin-owned failure is demonstrated, stop at the diagnosis; do not report a focused leaf compile as a substitute for reproducing the issue.

## Patch Pass

Subject: Diagnose Munin node poll signal before changing source

## Commit Message
No source change. The available evidence does not identify a Munin bug that can be safely patched.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
Fixer’s evidence reports 100% of sampled CPU passing through the kernel symbol `perf_ctx_enable`, and captures three `pselect6` calls timing out after roughly 1.8–2 seconds. The `/proc` snapshot marks the process as sleeping, and its wait channel is `poll_schedule_timeout`. Those timed waits are not evidence of rapid polling; they are consistent with a process waiting for I/O. The Perl entrypoint `script/munin-node` delegates server handling to `Net::Server::Fork`; the repository’s `select()` loop in `lib/Munin/Node/OS.pm` handles plugin output pipes and is not shown to be involved. I made no source change because the trace does not connect the signal to a Munin code path. The sampled PID is no longer present, so this behavior could not be independently reproduced. A live trace and language-level stack tied to the affected process are needed before proposing a patch.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` — blocked because `Build.PL` cannot find `Module/Build.pm`.
- `make check` — unavailable: the Makefile has no `check` target.
- `perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node` — passed (`syntax OK`).
- Reproduction attempt: `ps -p 3947104 ...` found no process for the PID in the evidence. Although `strace` is installed, tracing that expired process was not possible; I did not start a replacement daemon because that would not reproduce the collected signal.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: ok

The first pass makes no source changes, appropriately classifies the evidence as `inferred`, and explains why the timed `pselect6` calls do not establish a Munin busy loop. The build blocker and syntax check are reported; no workspace diff is present.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem
Fixer labels `munin-node` a likely busy poll, but the bundle does not establish runaway CPU: the process is sleeping, and its three captured `pselect6` calls time out after roughly 1.8–2 seconds. The hot symbol is in the kernel, not Perl or Munin code.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

The profiler signal is observed, but its “busy-poll” interpretation is not confirmed. Source inspection found no evidence tying a Munin defect to the captured behavior. A separate scout noted a possible pipe-handling concern in `Munin::Node::OS`; it is unrelated to this signal and depends on a scenario absent from the evidence, so it should not become a speculative patch.

## Proposed Subject
No source patch; report that the evidence is insufficient to attribute the signal to Munin or Perl.

## Patch Plan
Do not edit source. If more evidence becomes available, start with the `script/munin-node` entrypoint and its `Munin::Node::Server` path, then investigate Perl only if script-level evidence points to a runtime defect. Follow the project’s documented `master` integration base (`HACKING.pod`); the offline checkout has no remote metadata. `Munin::Common::Timeout` is a local timeout helper, but no relevant event-loop helper was found that explains this trace. There is no prior Fixer source patch to replace.

## Risks
A source change based on this profile could alter normal daemon waiting behavior without addressing the reported signal. The pipe-handling concern is not connected by the bundle. An upstream report should make the mismatch clear to maintainers unfamiliar with the complaint: the captured calls show timed waits, not a demonstrated busy loop.

## Validation
From the workspace root, try `make` first, then `make check` if that target exists; the project documents `make test` as its test entrypoint. No focused leaf compile is planned without a source change. For an independent, bounded attempt to check the reported signal, inspect the affected process with `ps -p 3947104 -o pid,stat,pcpu,etime,wchan,args` and, if it is still the same process, capture up to five seconds of `strace -tt -T -p 3947104 -e pselect6`. This can check whether timed waits persist, but cannot establish the historical CPU profile if the process is gone.

## Patch Pass



## Workflow Note

{"type":"item.completed","item":{"id":"item_2","type":"agent_message","text":"The plan recommends diagnosis only; I’ll verify it against the saved plan and workspace before deciding whether any source change is justified."}}
{"type":"error","message":"Reconnecting... 1/5 (stream disconnected before completion: Upstream websocket closed before response.completed: Upstream websocket receive failed)"}
{"type":"error","message":"Reconnecting... 2/5 (unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: 0cc10ed6-95ba-41a8-acd1-5f8e62232905)"}
{"type":"error","message":"Reconnecting... 3/5 (unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: e84a8102-d36d-4de6-8cd6-2c447b32ff6e)"}
{"type":"error","message":"Reconnecting... 4/5 (unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: 5545ada9-0f8e-42aa-a67c-b4e86e2ec624)"}
{"type":"error","message":"Reconnecting... 5/5 (unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: 7079b3f2-8d2e-44b2-ae06-fd38417a7589)"}
{"type":"error","message":"unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: 467f1b3b-b354-4888-9edc-88380f675d84"}
{"type":"turn.failed","error":{"message":"unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: 467f1b3b-b354-4888-9edc-88380f675d84"}}

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Codex suba

[truncated 3140 bytes]

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem
Fixer flagged `munin-node` as a possible busy poll, but the bundle does not establish that the Perl script or runtime is spinning. The entrypoint delegates to `Net::Server::Fork`; the captured `pselect6` calls time out after roughly 1.8–2 seconds, and the process is reported sleeping.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred — profiler and syscall observations do not identify a source-level cause. No Perl stack ties the waits to script code, and the evidence itself leaves script-versus-runtime causality unresolved. A separate source inspection found that `munin-node` delegates its server loop to `Net::Server::Fork`; its request handler reads input, rather than implementing that loop locally. This is a diagnosis, not a confirmed bug fix.

## Proposed Subject
No source-patch subject: report the busy-poll finding as unconfirmed pending better runtime evidence.

## Patch Plan
- Do not change `munin-node` or Perl based on this trace alone; no reproducer or user-visible failure is established.
- Before considering edits, collect a bounded CPU measurement and language-level stack for the same process while capturing syscall waits, to distinguish actual CPU use from normal timed polling and attribute any hot loop.
- No prior Fixer patch is visible in the workspace. If later evidence implicates local code, inspect the responsible path and nearby callers first.
- Follow `CONTRIBUTING.md` and `HACKING.pod`. Relevant local APIs include `do_with_timeout`, `_net_read`/`_net_write`, and `Munin::Node::OS` child-process IO helpers; no separate local event-loop abstraction was found. The server loop is inherited from `Net::Server::Fork`.
- The workspace is on `master`. `HACKING.pod` says bug-fix patches should target `stable-2.0`; no patch is proposed, so no merge-request base is selected.

## Risks
A speculative change could alter normal server wait behavior without addressing the reported CPU concern. The kernel-only hot symbol and sleeping status make source attribution especially uncertain. Do not patch the Perl runtime unless evidence specifically implicates it.

## Validation
- From the workspace root, try `make` first, then `make check` if that target is available; report the exact command and failure reason if dependencies or generated files prevent the project-level check.
- Follow the project’s documented Perl test entrypoint, `perl Build.PL` then `./Build test`, if setup permits. The workspace has `Build.PL` and `Makefile.config`, but no generated `Build` script.
- For bounded independent reproduction, sample CPU and capture `strace`/Perl-level stack for the affected `munin-node` process over a short interval. The provided trace alone cannot demonstrate a busy spin, so do not claim reproduction without that result.

## Patch Pass

Subject: Diagnose munin-node busy-poll evidence

## Commit Message
No source changes. The available trace does not establish a Munin or Perl busy loop, so a speculative behavior change would not be appropriate.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
Fixer captured `pselect6` waits lasting about 1.8–2 seconds, `/proc` reported the process sleeping, and the reported CPU usage was 0.9%. The source inspection found that `script/munin-node` delegates its server loop to `Net::Server::Fork`; the local request handler reads input rather than implementing a tight poll loop. These signals do not identify a source-level cause, so no code change was made. The expected effect of this diagnosis is to avoid changing normal server behavior until a Perl-level stack or reproducible workload attributes the suspected CPU use to Munin.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` — blocked: `Build.PL` could not load `Module::Build` (`Can't locate Module/Build.pm`).
- `make check` — unavailable: the Makefile has no `check` target.
- `perl -Ilib -c script/munin-node` — initially blocked because the script’s `-T` taint flag must be passed explicitly; `perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node` passed (`syntax OK`).
- Independent reproduction attempt: `ps -p 3947104 -o pid,stat,pcpu,etime,wchan,args` found no such process in this workspace, so the captured runtime signal could not be reproduced here. The original report is based on profiler, `strace`, and `/proc` evidence.
- `CONTRIBUTING.md` and `HACKING.pod` point to `perl Build.PL` and `./Build test`; no generated `Build` script is present. `HACKING.pod` requests bug-fix patches target `stable-2.0`; no patch or merge-request base is proposed. Relevant local conventions include `do_with_timeout` and blocking IO helpers; the server loop is inherited from `Net::Server::Fork`.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: ok

The first patch pass leaves no source diff and reports an inferred diagnosis. Its cautious conclusion matches the evidence: `pselect6` timed out, `/proc` showed the process sleeping, and the Perl entrypoint delegates the server loop to `Net::Server::Fork`. The independent check could not reproduce the signal because the captured PID was absent from this workspace.

Validation is reported with the `make` blocker (`Module::Build` missing), the unavailable `make check` target, and the passing taint-aware Perl syntax check. No actionable review findings.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Codex suba

[truncated 3140 bytes]

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem
Fixer flagged `munin-node` as a possible busy poll, but the bundle does not establish that the Perl script or runtime is spinning. The entrypoint delegates to `Net::Server::Fork`; the captured `pselect6` calls time out after roughly 1.8–2 seconds, and the process is reported sleeping.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred — profiler and syscall observations do not identify a source-level cause. No Perl stack ties the waits to script code, and the evidence itself leaves script-versus-runtime causality unresolved. A separate source inspection found that `munin-node` delegates its server loop to `Net::Server::Fork`; its request handler reads input, rather than implementing that loop locally. This is a diagnosis, not a confirmed bug fix.

## Proposed Subject
No source-patch subject: report the busy-poll finding as unconfirmed pending better runtime evidence.

## Patch Plan
- Do not change `munin-node` or Perl based on this trace alone; no reproducer or user-visible failure is established.
- Before considering edits, collect a bounded CPU measurement and language-level stack for the same process while capturing syscall waits, to distinguish actual CPU use from normal timed polling and attribute any hot loop.
- No prior Fixer patch is visible in the workspace. If later evidence implicates local code, inspect the responsible path and nearby callers first.
- Follow `CONTRIBUTING.md` and `HACKING.pod`. Relevant local APIs include `do_with_timeout`, `_net_read`/`_net_write`, and `Munin::Node::OS` child-process IO helpers; no separate local event-loop abstraction was found. The server loop is inherited from `Net::Server::Fork`.
- The workspace is on `master`. `HACKING.pod` says bug-fix patches should target `stable-2.0`; no patch is proposed, so no merge-request base is selected.

## Risks
A speculative change could alter normal server wait behavior without addressing the reported CPU concern. The kernel-only hot symbol and sleeping status make source attribution especially uncertain. Do not patch the Perl runtime unless evidence specifically implicates it.

## Validation
- From the workspace root, try `make` first, then `make check` if that target is available; report the exact command and failure reason if dependencies or generated files prevent the project-level check.
- Follow the project’s documented Perl test entrypoint, `perl Build.PL` then `./Build test`, if setup permits. The workspace has `Build.PL` and `Makefile.config`, but no generated `Build` script.
- For bounded independent reproduction, sample CPU and capture `strace`/Perl-level stack for the affected `munin-node` process over a short interval. The provided trace alone cannot demonstrate a busy spin, so do not claim reproduction without that result.

## Patch Pass

Subject: Diagnose munin-node busy-poll evidence

## Commit Message
No source changes. The available trace does not establish a Munin or Perl busy loop, so a speculative behavior change would not be appropriate.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
Fixer captured `pselect6` waits lasting about 1.8–2 seconds, `/proc` reported the process sleeping, and the reported CPU usage was 0.9%. The source inspection found that `script/munin-node` delegates its server loop to `Net::Server::Fork`; the local request handler reads input rather than implementing a tight poll loop. These signals do not identify a source-level cause, so no code change was made. The expected effect of this diagnosis is to avoid changing normal server behavior until a Perl-level stack or reproducible workload attributes the suspected CPU use to Munin.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` — blocked: `Build.PL` could not load `Module::Build` (`Can't locate Module/Build.pm`).
- `make check` — unavailable: the Makefile has no `check` target.
- `perl -Ilib -c script/munin-node` — initially blocked because the script’s `-T` taint flag must be passed explicitly; `perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node` passed (`syntax OK`).
- Independent reproduction attempt: `ps -p 3947104 -o pid,stat,pcpu,etime,wchan,args` found no such process in this workspace, so the captured runtime signal could not be reproduced here. The original report is based on profiler, `strace`, and `/proc` evidence.
- `CONTRIBUTING.md` and `HACKING.pod` point to `perl Build.PL` and `./Build test`; no generated `Build` script is present. `HACKING.pod` requests bug-fix patches target `stable-2.0`; no patch or merge-request base is proposed. Relevant local conventions include `do_with_timeout` and blocking IO helpers; the server loop is inherited from `Net::Server::Fork`.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: ok

The first patch pass leaves no source diff and reports an inferred diagnosis. Its cautious conclusion matches the evidence: `pselect6` timed out, `/proc` showed the process sleeping, and the Perl entrypoint delegates the server loop to `Net::Server::Fork`. The independent check could not reproduce the signal because the captured PID was absent from this workspace.

Validation is reported with the `make` blocker (`Module::Build` missing), the unavailable `make check` target, and the passing taint-aware Perl syntax check. No actionable review findings.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Codex suba

[truncated 3140 bytes]

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem
- Fixer reports a likely busy-poll loop in `munin-node`, but its samples show `pselect6` calls timing out after roughly 1.8–2 seconds and the process sleeping in `poll_schedule_timeout`. That does not establish a busy loop or identify a faulty Munin code path.

## Evidence Confidence
- **inferred**
- The script entrypoint delegates its daemon loop to external `Net::Server::Fork`; inspected Munin loops are blocking or timeout-bounded. `Munin::Node::OS`’s `select` loop has no timeout and waits for plugin output.
- The evidence bundle does not tie CPU use to a Munin source loop. Do not claim reproduction or make a source patch on this evidence. No prior Fixer patch was found in the evidence to improve or replace.

## Proposed Subject
- No source patch proposed; diagnose the CPU attribution before changing Munin.

## Patch Plan
- No edits in this pass. If further evidence localizes the issue to Munin, inspect the entrypoint and affected path first; investigate Perl or another runtime only if the script-level trace points there.
- Before any future patch, collect a language-level stack or trace and correlate it with CPU samples while the process is reportedly consuming CPU. Compare with a sleeping baseline and inspect the installed `Net::Server::Fork` event loop if samples point into it.
- Follow `CONTRIBUTING.md` and `HACKING.pod`: imperative present-tense subject, file-local style, strictness and warnings, and `master` as the upstream integration base for a non-bug-fix investigation. No relevant Munin wrapper for the delegated server event loop was found; the loop is provided by an external dependency.

## Risks
- Patching the Perl runtime or Munin’s event loop now would be speculative and could alter daemon behavior without addressing the reported CPU signal.
- Runtime frames and kernel profiler samples alone cannot establish a script bug.

## Validation
- From the workspace root, first try the project-level `make` build and `make check` if that target exists; report exact commands and failures, including missing dependencies or generated files.
- Independently, when safe and permitted on the affected host, sample `ps -p <pid> -o pid,stat,pcpu,etime,wchan,args` alongside a short `strace -tt -T -p <pid>` during a period when CPU use is reported. Repeated timed `pselect6` sleeps without corresponding CPU growth would argue against the diagnosed busy loop; this is a bounded check, not a reproduction claim.
- If later evidence identifies a source path, run its narrowest reproducible test or compile only after the project-level attempt.

## Patch Pass

Subject: Diagnose Munin node CPU attribution before changing source

## Commit Message
No source patch. The available evidence does not identify a Munin code path responsible for CPU use, so changing the node’s event loop would be speculative.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
The collected signal reports `perf_ctx_enable` as the hot symbol, with three `pselect6` calls and a `/proc` state of sleeping. The captured `strace` excerpt shows `pselect6` timing out after about 1.8 and 2 seconds; this does not establish a busy loop. The `munin-node` entrypoint delegates its server loop to external `Net::Server::Fork`, while inspected Munin `select` loops block waiting for plugin output. No code change was made because the evidence does not connect the reported CPU use to a Munin source loop. The captured PID was absent in this workspace, so I could not gather a fresh trace to resolve that uncertainty.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` — failed because `Module::Build` is unavailable (`Can't locate Module/Build.pm`).
- `make check` — failed because the workspace has no `check` target.
- `perl -Ilib -c script/munin-node` — failed because the taint-mode script requires `-T` on the command line.
- `perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node` — passed (`syntax OK`).
- Bounded reproduction attempt: `ps -p 3947104 ...` found no process with the captured PID, so the attached `timeout 3s strace -tt -T -p 3947104` check could not run. No independent reproduction was obtained.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: ok

No source changes are present in the workspace. The patch report appropriately keeps confidence `inferred` and recommends no patch: the sleeping `/proc` state and timed-out `pselect6` calls do not establish a busy loop. Validation blockers and the successful taint-aware syntax check are reported consistently.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Codex suba

[truncated 3140 bytes]

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem
- Fixer reports a likely busy-poll loop in `munin-node`, but its samples show `pselect6` calls timing out after roughly 1.8–2 seconds and the process sleeping in `poll_schedule_timeout`. That does not establish a busy loop or identify a faulty Munin code path.

## Evidence Confidence
- **inferred**
- The script entrypoint delegates its daemon loop to external `Net::Server::Fork`; inspected Munin loops are blocking or timeout-bounded. `Munin::Node::OS`’s `select` loop has no timeout and waits for plugin output.
- The evidence bundle does not tie CPU use to a Munin source loop. Do not claim reproduction or make a source patch on this evidence. No prior Fixer patch was found in the evidence to improve or replace.

## Proposed Subject
- No source patch proposed; diagnose the CPU attribution before changing Munin.

## Patch Plan
- No edits in this pass. If further evidence localizes the issue to Munin, inspect the entrypoint and affected path first; investigate Perl or another runtime only if the script-level trace points there.
- Before any future patch, collect a language-level stack or trace and correlate it with CPU samples while the process is reportedly consuming CPU. Compare with a sleeping baseline and inspect the installed `Net::Server::Fork` event loop if samples point into it.
- Follow `CONTRIBUTING.md` and `HACKING.pod`: imperative present-tense subject, file-local style, strictness and warnings, and `master` as the upstream integration base for a non-bug-fix investigation. No relevant Munin wrapper for the delegated server event loop was found; the loop is provided by an external dependency.

## Risks
- Patching the Perl runtime or Munin’s event loop now would be speculative and could alter daemon behavior without addressing the reported CPU signal.
- Runtime frames and kernel profiler samples alone cannot establish a script bug.

## Validation
- From the workspace root, first try the project-level `make` build and `make check` if that target exists; report exact commands and failures, including missing dependencies or generated files.
- Independently, when safe and permitted on the affected host, sample `ps -p <pid> -o pid,stat,pcpu,etime,wchan,args` alongside a short `strace -tt -T -p <pid>` during a period when CPU use is reported. Repeated timed `pselect6` sleeps without corresponding CPU growth would argue against the diagnosed busy loop; this is a bounded check, not a reproduction claim.
- If later evidence identifies a source path, run its narrowest reproducible test or compile only after the project-level attempt.

## Patch Pass

Subject: Diagnose Munin node CPU attribution before changing source

## Commit Message
No source patch. The available evidence does not identify a Munin code path responsible for CPU use, so changing the node’s event loop would be speculative.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
The collected signal reports `perf_ctx_enable` as the hot symbol, with three `pselect6` calls and a `/proc` state of sleeping. The captured `strace` excerpt shows `pselect6` timing out after about 1.8 and 2 seconds; this does not establish a busy loop. The `munin-node` entrypoint delegates its server loop to external `Net::Server::Fork`, while inspected Munin `select` loops block waiting for plugin output. No code change was made because the evidence does not connect the reported CPU use to a Munin source loop. The captured PID was absent in this workspace, so I could not gather a fresh trace to resolve that uncertainty.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` — failed because `Module::Build` is unavailable (`Can't locate Module/Build.pm`).
- `make check` — failed because the workspace has no `check` target.
- `perl -Ilib -c script/munin-node` — failed because the taint-mode script requires `-T` on the command line.
- `perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node` — passed (`syntax OK`).
- Bounded reproduction attempt: `ps -p 3947104 ...` found no process with the captured PID, so the attached `timeout 3s strace -tt -T -p 3947104` check could not run. No independent reproduction was obtained.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: ok

No source changes are present in the workspace. The patch report appropriately keeps confidence `inferred` and recommends no patch: the sleeping `/proc` state and timed-out `pselect6` calls do not establish a busy loop. Validation blockers and the successful taint-aware syntax check are reported consistently.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Codex suba

[truncated 3140 bytes]

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem
The profiler flagged `munin-node` as a possible busy-poll, but the evidence shows timed `pselect6` waits and a sleeping process. It does not establish a busy loop or user-visible failure.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

Plan a no-patch diagnosis. Fixer observed the process behavior, but it was not independently reproduced. `script/munin-node` delegates to `Munin::Node::Server`, which inherits the external `Net::Server::Fork` listener loop; that is consistent with normal timed waits, not proof of a Munin busy loop.

## Proposed Subject
No source patch. Report the observed waits as likely normal listener behavior and request a bounded live reproduction if CPU use remains a concern.

## Patch Plan
- Inspect the entrypoint first: `script/munin-node` calls `Munin::Node::Server->run`; the server inherits `Net::Server::Fork`. No Munin-local helper for this listener wait was found.
- Do not change listener timeouts or patch Perl: that would be speculative and could affect signal handling or responsiveness. No prior Fixer patch was found.
- Follow the project’s Perl conventions if later evidence supports a change. The workspace is on `master`; `HACKING.pod` directs confirmed bug-fix patches to `stable-2.0`.

## Risks
The trace may represent expected sleeping, not runaway CPU. Keep runtime investigation secondary unless evidence ties the behavior to Perl rather than the script or server dependency.

## Validation
- Try `make` from the workspace root first. The scout reports it fails because `Module::Build` is missing; verify and include the exact failure in any report.
- Then try `make check`; the scout reports the Makefile has no `check` target.
- For a bounded independent reproduction attempt, collect process state and timed syscall traces from a live node, e.g. `ps -p <pid> -o pid,stat,pcpu,etime,wchan,args` and short `strace -tt -T -e pselect6,select -p <pid>`. Do not claim reproduction unless it demonstrates the alleged busy loop.
- If project build/test dependencies are unavailable, the fallback `perl -Ilib -c script/munin-node` checks syntax only; it cannot validate the runtime behavior.

## Patch Pass

Subject: Diagnose munin-node polling profile as normal listener wait

## Commit Message
No source patch is justified by the available evidence. The trace shows `munin-node` sleeping in timed waits, not an established busy loop. The likely source is the normal listener wait provided by the external `Net::Server::Fork` dependency.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
Fixer’s signal shows `munin-node` in `pselect6`, with calls timing out after about 1.8 and 2 seconds; `/proc` reports the process sleeping in `poll_schedule_timeout`, with 0.9% CPU. The likely explanation is the parent listener’s normal timed wait: `script/munin-node` calls `Munin::Node::Server->run`, which inherits `Net::Server::Fork`; its `IO::Select` listener wait is consistent with the observed syscalls. The kernel `perf_ctx_enable` hotspot does not establish a userspace spin loop. No Munin source change was made because the trace does not demonstrate a Munin defect; changing listener timing would be speculative.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` failed: `Build.PL` could not load `Module::Build` from `@INC` (`Can't locate Module/Build.pm`, at `Build.PL` line 80).
- `make check` failed because the Makefile has no `check` target.
- `perl -Ilib -c script/munin-node` failed because the script’s taint-mode shebang requires `-T` on the command line. The corrected `perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node` passed.
- The bounded live-process check found no `/usr/sbin/munin-node` process to trace, so independent reproduction was unavailable. The trace evidence remains indirect and does not justify a source patch.
- No Munin-local helper for the listener wait was found; it is delegated to `Net::Server::Fork`/`IO::Select`. `HACKING.pod` says bug-fix patches target `stable-2.0`; no patch is proposed.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: ok

The no-patch diagnosis is appropriate: evidence shows a sleeping process with multi-second `pselect6` timeouts, not a reproduced busy loop. The response uses `inferred`, explains the likely `Net::Server::Fork`/`IO::Select` wait without overstating the cause, and records the build blockers and reproduction limitation. The workspace has no source diff.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Codex suba

[truncated 3140 bytes]

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem
The profiler flagged `munin-node` as a possible busy-poll, but the evidence shows timed `pselect6` waits and a sleeping process. It does not establish a busy loop or user-visible failure.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

Plan a no-patch diagnosis. Fixer observed the process behavior, but it was not independently reproduced. `script/munin-node` delegates to `Munin::Node::Server`, which inherits the external `Net::Server::Fork` listener loop; that is consistent with normal timed waits, not proof of a Munin busy loop.

## Proposed Subject
No source patch. Report the observed waits as likely normal listener behavior and request a bounded live reproduction if CPU use remains a concern.

## Patch Plan
- Inspect the entrypoint first: `script/munin-node` calls `Munin::Node::Server->run`; the server inherits `Net::Server::Fork`. No Munin-local helper for this listener wait was found.
- Do not change listener timeouts or patch Perl: that would be speculative and could affect signal handling or responsiveness. No prior Fixer patch was found.
- Follow the project’s Perl conventions if later evidence supports a change. The workspace is on `master`; `HACKING.pod` directs confirmed bug-fix patches to `stable-2.0`.

## Risks
The trace may represent expected sleeping, not runaway CPU. Keep runtime investigation secondary unless evidence ties the behavior to Perl rather than the script or server dependency.

## Validation
- Try `make` from the workspace root first. The scout reports it fails because `Module::Build` is missing; verify and include the exact failure in any report.
- Then try `make check`; the scout reports the Makefile has no `check` target.
- For a bounded independent reproduction attempt, collect process state and timed syscall traces from a live node, e.g. `ps -p <pid> -o pid,stat,pcpu,etime,wchan,args` and short `strace -tt -T -e pselect6,select -p <pid>`. Do not claim reproduction unless it demonstrates the alleged busy loop.
- If project build/test dependencies are unavailable, the fallback `perl -Ilib -c script/munin-node` checks syntax only; it cannot validate the runtime behavior.

## Patch Pass

Subject: Diagnose munin-node polling profile as normal listener wait

## Commit Message
No source patch is justified by the available evidence. The trace shows `munin-node` sleeping in timed waits, not an established busy loop. The likely source is the normal listener wait provided by the external `Net::Server::Fork` dependency.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
Fixer’s signal shows `munin-node` in `pselect6`, with calls timing out after about 1.8 and 2 seconds; `/proc` reports the process sleeping in `poll_schedule_timeout`, with 0.9% CPU. The likely explanation is the parent listener’s normal timed wait: `script/munin-node` calls `Munin::Node::Server->run`, which inherits `Net::Server::Fork`; its `IO::Select` listener wait is consistent with the observed syscalls. The kernel `perf_ctx_enable` hotspot does not establish a userspace spin loop. No Munin source change was made because the trace does not demonstrate a Munin defect; changing listener timing would be speculative.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` failed: `Build.PL` could not load `Module::Build` from `@INC` (`Can't locate Module/Build.pm`, at `Build.PL` line 80).
- `make check` failed because the Makefile has no `check` target.
- `perl -Ilib -c script/munin-node` failed because the script’s taint-mode shebang requires `-T` on the command line. The corrected `perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node` passed.
- The bounded live-process check found no `/usr/sbin/munin-node` process to trace, so independent reproduction was unavailable. The trace evidence remains indirect and does not justify a source patch.
- No Munin-local helper for the listener wait was found; it is delegated to `Net::Server::Fork`/`IO::Select`. `HACKING.pod` says bug-fix patches target `stable-2.0`; no patch is proposed.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: ok

The no-patch diagnosis is appropriate: evidence shows a sleeping process with multi-second `pselect6` timeouts, not a reproduced busy loop. The response uses `inferred`, explains the likely `Net::Server::Fork`/`IO::Select` wait without overstating the cause, and records the build blockers and reproduction limitation. The workspace has no source diff.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem
- Fixer flags `munin-node` as a likely busy poller, but the evidence records only three `pselect6` calls that each timed out after roughly 1.8–2 seconds. The process was sleeping, and the sampled hot symbol is a kernel profiling symbol; this does not establish a tight loop or identify faulty Munin code.
- The script entrypoint, `script/munin-node`, hands server work to `Munin::Node::Server` and Net::Server. The inspected paths contain no clear defect supported by the evidence.

## Evidence Confidence
- **inferred**
- This is a diagnosis-only plan, not a source-patch proposal. The evidence is profiler/trace-based and does not prove a script or runtime bug. Do not treat Perl itself as the primary target without language-level evidence tying the behavior to the runtime.

## Proposed Subject
- No patch subject: collect better evidence before proposing a code change.

## Patch Plan
- Make no edits. First collect process CPU/state over time and a language-level stack or trace under the affected configuration, then determine whether Munin code is repeatedly waking, the profiler is accounting for time unexpectedly, or the runtime is implicated.
- For any later upstream patch, inspect the server/event-loop callers and relevant tests; explain the actual failure path in maintainer-facing terms. Follow `HACKING.pod`’s Perl conventions (`strict`, `warnings`, and existing file style). No Munin-specific socket-wait helper was found; the server delegates to Net::Server.
- No prior Fixer patch is present to improve or replace. Avoid introducing a speculative workaround or awkward control flow.
- `HACKING.pod` directs bug fixes to `stable-2.0`; use that branch if evidence establishes a bug fix. Otherwise, use the upstream default branch, `master`, for non-bug-fix changes.

## Risks
- A source change based on this trace could alter server behavior without addressing the reported signal. The sampled profile and timeout observations may reflect measurement effects rather than a Munin defect.

## Validation
- First try project-level `make` from the workspace root, then `make check` if that target exists. If dependencies or generated files prevent those commands from running, record the exact command and failure reason before considering a focused check.
- For one bounded independent reproduction attempt, run the foreground node with an isolated test configuration and capture a short syscall trace; only proceed if that configuration avoids binding or affecting a live service. Do not claim reproduction unless it demonstrates the reported failure.

## Patch Pass



## Workflow Note

{"type":"item.completed","item":{"id":"item_3","type":"command_execution","command":"/bin/bash -lc \"cat ./plan-output.txt; printf '\\\\n--- Evidence fields ---\\\\n'; jq '{summary:.opportunity.summary,details:.opportunity.evidence.details|{command_line,hot_path_symbol,hot_path_percent,dominant_sequence,loop_classification,loop_explanation,top_syscalls,strace_excerpt,status_excerpt,wchan,interpreter_process}}' ./evidence.json; printf '\\\\n--- status ---\\\\n'; git status --short; git branch --show-current\"","aggregated_output":"## Problem\n- Fixer flags `munin-node` as a likely busy poller, but the evidence records only three `pselect6` calls that each timed out after roughly 1.8–2 seconds. The process was sleeping, and the sampled hot symbol is a kernel profiling symbol; this does not establish a tight loop or identify faulty Munin code.\n- The script entrypoint, `script/munin-node`, hands server work to `Munin::Node::Server` and Net::Server. The inspected paths contain no clear defect supported by the evidence.\n\n## Evidence Confidence\n- **inferred**\n- This is a diagnosis-only plan, not a source-patch proposal. The evidence is profiler/trace-based and does not prove a script or runtime bug. Do not treat Perl itself as the primary target without language-level evidence tying the behavior to the runtime.\n\n## Proposed Subject\n- No patch subject: collect better evidence before proposing a code change.\n\n## Patch Plan\n- Make no edits. First collect process CPU/state over time and a language-level stack or trace under the affected configuration, then determine whether Munin code is repeatedly waking, the profiler is accounting for time unexpectedly, or the runtime is implicated.\n- For any later upstream patch, inspect the server/event-loop callers and relevant tests; explain the actual failure path in maintainer-facing terms. Follow `HACKING.pod`’s Perl conventions (`strict`, `warnings`, and existing file style). No Munin-specific socket-wait helper was found; the server delegates to Net::Server.\n- No prior Fixer patch is present to improve or replace. Avoid introducing a speculative workaround or awkward control flow.\n- `HACKING.pod` directs bug fixes to `stable-2.0`; use that branch if evidence establishes a bug fix. Otherwise, use the upstream default branch, `master`, for non-bug-fix changes.\n\n## Risks\n- A source change based on this trace could alter server behavior without addressing the reported signal. The sampled profile and timeout observations may reflect measurement effects rather than a Munin defect.\n\n## Validation\n- First try project-level `make` from the workspace root, then `make check` if that target exists. If dependencies or generated files prevent those commands from running, record the exact command and failure reason before considering a focused check.\n- For one bounded independent reproduction attempt, run the foreground node with an isolated test configuration and capture a short syscall trace; only proceed if that configuration avoids binding or affecting a live service. Do not claim reproduction unless it demonstrates the reported failure.\n--- Evidence fields ---\n{\n  \"summary\": \"perl is stuck in a likely busy poll loop: 100.00% of sampled CPU passed through perf_ctx_enable, with repeated thread backtraces show 1 thread(s) around 0x00007f82eb9e87d2 in ?? () from target:<path>.\",\n  \"details\": {\n    \"command_line\": \"/usr/bin/perl -wT /usr/sbin/munin-node --foreground\",\n    \"hot_path_symbol\": \"perf_ctx_enable\",\n    \"hot_path_percent\": 100.0,\n    \"dominant_sequence\": [\n      \"pselect6\",\n      \"pselect6\",\n      \"pselect6\"\n    ],\n    \"loop_classification\": \"busy-poll\",\n    \"loop_explanation\": \"The trace repeatedly returns to a poll-family syscall without meaningful blocking, which suggests a busy event-loop wakeup.\",\n    \"top_syscalls\": [\n      {\n        \"count\": 3,\n        \"name\": \"pselect6\"\n      }\n    ],\n    \"strace_excerpt\": [\n      \"3947104 00:14:14.481204 pselect6(8, [5], NULL, NULL, {tv_sec=1, tv_nsec=813665550}, NULL) = 0 (Timeout) <1.815530>\",\n      \"3947104 00:14:16.296962 pselect6(8, [5], NULL, NULL, {tv_sec=2, tv_nsec=0}, NULL) = 0 (Timeout) <2.002044>\",\n      \"3947104 00:14:18.299106 pselect6(8, [5], NULL, NULL, {tv_sec=2, tv_nsec=0}, NULL\"\n    ],\n    \"status_excerpt\": \"Name:\\tmunin-node\\nUmask:\\t0022\\nState:\\tS (sleeping)\\nTgid:\\t3947104\\nNgid:\\t0\\nPid:\\t3947104\\nPPid:\\t1\\nTracerPid:\\t0\\nUid:\\t0\\t0\\t0\\t0\\nGid:\\t0\\t0\\t0\\t0\\nFDSize:\\t1024\\nGroups:\\t0 0 \\nNStgid:\\t3947104\\nNSpid:\\t3947104\\nNSpgid:\\t3947104\\nNSsid:\\t3947104\\nKthread:\\t0\\nVmPeak:\\t   26588 kB\\nVmSize:\\t   26588 kB\\nVmLck:\\t       0 kB\\nVmPin:\\t       0 kB\\nVmHWM:\\t   17088 kB\\nVmRSS:\\t   17088 kB\\nRssAnon:\\t   10224 kB\",\n    \"wchan\": \"poll_schedule_timeout.constprop.0\",\n    \"interpreter_process\": {\n      \"detection_signals\": [\n        \"native samples contain perl runtime frames\",\n        \"process command resolves to perl interpreter\"\n      ],\n      \"entrypoint_kind\": \"script\",\n      \"entrypoint_package_metadata\": {\n        \"candidate_version\": \"2.999.16-1\",\n        \"homepage\": \"https://munin-monitoring.org\",\n        \"installed_version\": \"2.0.76-7\",\n        \"package_name\": \"munin-node\",\n        \"report_url\": null,\n        \"source_package\": \"munin\"\n      },\n      \"entrypoint_package_name\": \"munin-node\",\n      \"evidence_gap\": \"Fixer saw a perl interpreter loop and a script entrypoint, but it did not prove whether the tight loop comes from script/application logic or from the runtime itself.\",\n      \"interpreter\": \"perl\",\n      \"interpreter_executable\": \"/usr/bin/perl\",\n      \"interpreter_options\": [\n        \"-wT\"\n      ],\n      \"module_options\": [],\n      \"recommended_next_steps\": [\n        \"ps -p <pid> -o pid,stat,pcpu,etime,wchan,args\",\n        \"Inspect the perl script or module entrypoint first; only patch the interpreter/runtime after proving it mishandles the workload.\",\n        \"Capture a language-level stack, trace, or minimal reproducer that ties the hot loop to the entrypoint before proposing runtime changes.\",\n        \"Keep runtime performance fixes in scope only when they also make bad script code run more predictably or cheaply without changing language semantics.\"\n      ],\n      \"runtime_package_metadata\": {\n        \"candidate_version\": \"5.42.2-1\",\n        \"homepage\": \"https://dev.perl.org/perl5/\",\n        \"installed_version\": \"5.40.1-7+b1\",\n        \"package_name\": \"perl-base\",\n        \"report_url\": null,\n        \"source_package\": \"perl\"\n      },\n      \"runtime_package_name\": \"perl-base\",\n      \"script_candidates\": [\n        \"/usr/sbin/munin-node\"\n      ],\n      \"suspected_entrypoint\": \"/usr/sbin/munin-node\"\n    }\n  }\n}\n\n--- status ---\nmaster\n","exit_code":0,"status":"completed"}}

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Codex suba

[truncated 15284 bytes]

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem
The evidence identifies `/usr/bin/perl -wT /usr/sbin/munin-node --foreground` and labels its activity a likely busy poll. But the captured `pselect6` calls waited roughly 1.8–2 seconds and timed out; the hot symbol is attributed to the kernel, not Munin code. Source inspection also found ordinary blocking waits, not a zero-timeout loop.

## Evidence Confidence
**inferred** — the profiler signal does not establish a Munin bug, and no independent reproduction is available. The entrypoint delegates to `Munin::Node::Server`; its input reads block, while `Munin::Node::OS::_read_from_child` uses `select(..., undef)` to wait for plugin output. No prior Fixer patch is present to improve or replace. Do not propose a source patch without additional evidence connecting sustained CPU use to Munin behavior.

## Proposed Subject
No patch proposed. Diagnose the report as unconfirmed and request process-level CPU and wait-state evidence before changing Munin.

## Patch Plan
No edits. If further evidence implicates Munin, inspect the server’s accept/read path and configured plugins before considering a narrowly scoped fix. `HACKING.pod` says bug-fix patches should target `stable-2.0`; the workspace is on `master`. The inspected select code uses Perl’s built-in `select`; no relevant local I/O wrapper was found. No control-flow change, including `goto`, is warranted on current evidence.

## Risks
Changing the event loop based on this profile could alter normal blocking behavior without addressing the kernel-attributed signal. Runtime changes are also unsupported: the evidence does not establish a Perl runtime defect.

## Validation
From the workspace root, try `make` and then `make test`; also check `make check` if that target exists (the inspected Makefile defines `test`, not `check`). For a bounded independent attempt when the reported workload is available, capture `ps -p <PID> -o pid,stat,pcpu,etime,wchan,args` and up to 30 seconds of `strace -ttT -p <PID> -e trace=pselect6`; the captured waits alone do not reproduce high CPU.

## Patch Pass

Thanks—this adds an important detail: the profile recorded only 0.9% CPU while the process was sleeping. That further supports the no-patch diagnosis; the source remains unchanged.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: fix-needed

## Findings
- `./patch-output.txt` contains a conversational acknowledgment, not a patch or complete no-patch diagnosis. It omits the required `## Evidence Confidence`, `## Issue Connection`, `## Git Add Paths`, and `## Validation` sections.
- The workspace has no source diff. That is appropriate: the evidence shows a sleeping process and `pselect6` calls waiting roughly 1.8–2 seconds, not a confirmed Munin busy loop. Keep the no-patch conclusion, but regenerate the response as a complete diagnosis and include the validation results/blockers already collected.

## Refinement Pass 1

Subject: Diagnose Munin node activity without a confirmed busy loop

## Commit Message
No source changes. The available evidence does not establish a Munin source defect, so changing the event loop would be speculative.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
Fixer captured `/usr/bin/perl -wT /usr/sbin/munin-node --foreground` sleeping in `poll_schedule_timeout`. The process was in state `S` and recorded 0.9% total CPU over the sample; separately, `100%` describes the profiler’s hot-path attribution to kernel symbol `perf_ctx_enable`, not overall CPU use. The captured `pselect6` calls waited about 1.8–2 seconds before timing out. Source inspection found the entrypoint delegates to `Munin::Node::Server` and the relevant reads block; there is no Perl-level evidence tying the kernel samples to a Munin defect. No code change is justified. The expected effect of this diagnosis is to avoid an unsupported change to normal wait behavior until stronger process-level or language-level evidence is available.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- Addressed the review finding by providing this complete diagnosis in the required format; the workspace has no source diff.
- From the workspace root, `make` and `make test` both fail because `Module/Build.pm` is missing (`Build.PL:80`). `make check` fails because there is no `check` target.
- Focused checks pass for `perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node` and `perl -Ilib -c lib/Munin/Node/Server.pm`. `perl -Ilib -c lib/Munin/Node/OS.pm` reports syntax OK with subroutine-redefinition warnings because it was already loaded in the same Perl process.
- Independent reproduction was blocked: `ps -p 3947104 -o pid,stat,pcpu,etime,wchan,args` returned no process row and `/proc/3947104/status` was unavailable, so there was no live process to trace. The signal was not independently reproduced.
- No relevant local wrapper was found for the inspected `select`; it is Perl’s built-in. No patch branch is selected. `HACKING.pod` says bug fixes target `stable-2.0`; the workspace is on `master`.

## Review Pass 2

RESULT: ok

The refined response is a complete no-patch diagnosis with `inferred` confidence. It distinguishes the 0.9% overall CPU measurement from the 100% kernel hot-path attribution, accurately reports the blocked validation and reproduction attempt, and the worktree has no source diff.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Codex suba

[truncated 15284 bytes]

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem
The evidence identifies `/usr/bin/perl -wT /usr/sbin/munin-node --foreground` and labels its activity a likely busy poll. But the captured `pselect6` calls waited roughly 1.8–2 seconds and timed out; the hot symbol is attributed to the kernel, not Munin code. Source inspection also found ordinary blocking waits, not a zero-timeout loop.

## Evidence Confidence
**inferred** — the profiler signal does not establish a Munin bug, and no independent reproduction is available. The entrypoint delegates to `Munin::Node::Server`; its input reads block, while `Munin::Node::OS::_read_from_child` uses `select(..., undef)` to wait for plugin output. No prior Fixer patch is present to improve or replace. Do not propose a source patch without additional evidence connecting sustained CPU use to Munin behavior.

## Proposed Subject
No patch proposed. Diagnose the report as unconfirmed and request process-level CPU and wait-state evidence before changing Munin.

## Patch Plan
No edits. If further evidence implicates Munin, inspect the server’s accept/read path and configured plugins before considering a narrowly scoped fix. `HACKING.pod` says bug-fix patches should target `stable-2.0`; the workspace is on `master`. The inspected select code uses Perl’s built-in `select`; no relevant local I/O wrapper was found. No control-flow change, including `goto`, is warranted on current evidence.

## Risks
Changing the event loop based on this profile could alter normal blocking behavior without addressing the kernel-attributed signal. Runtime changes are also unsupported: the evidence does not establish a Perl runtime defect.

## Validation
From the workspace root, try `make` and then `make test`; also check `make check` if that target exists (the inspected Makefile defines `test`, not `check`). For a bounded independent attempt when the reported workload is available, capture `ps -p <PID> -o pid,stat,pcpu,etime,wchan,args` and up to 30 seconds of `strace -ttT -p <PID> -e trace=pselect6`; the captured waits alone do not reproduce high CPU.

## Patch Pass

Thanks—this adds an important detail: the profile recorded only 0.9% CPU while the process was sleeping. That further supports the no-patch diagnosis; the source remains unchanged.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: fix-needed

## Findings
- `./patch-output.txt` contains a conversational acknowledgment, not a patch or complete no-patch diagnosis. It omits the required `## Evidence Confidence`, `## Issue Connection`, `## Git Add Paths`, and `## Validation` sections.
- The workspace has no source diff. That is appropriate: the evidence shows a sleeping process and `pselect6` calls waiting roughly 1.8–2 seconds, not a confirmed Munin busy loop. Keep the no-patch conclusion, but regenerate the response as a complete diagnosis and include the validation results/blockers already collected.

## Refinement Pass 1

Subject: Diagnose Munin node activity without a confirmed busy loop

## Commit Message
No source changes. The available evidence does not establish a Munin source defect, so changing the event loop would be speculative.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
Fixer captured `/usr/bin/perl -wT /usr/sbin/munin-node --foreground` sleeping in `poll_schedule_timeout`. The process was in state `S` and recorded 0.9% total CPU over the sample; separately, `100%` describes the profiler’s hot-path attribution to kernel symbol `perf_ctx_enable`, not overall CPU use. The captured `pselect6` calls waited about 1.8–2 seconds before timing out. Source inspection found the entrypoint delegates to `Munin::Node::Server` and the relevant reads block; there is no Perl-level evidence tying the kernel samples to a Munin defect. No code change is justified. The expected effect of this diagnosis is to avoid an unsupported change to normal wait behavior until stronger process-level or language-level evidence is available.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- Addressed the review finding by providing this complete diagnosis in the required format; the workspace has no source diff.
- From the workspace root, `make` and `make test` both fail because `Module/Build.pm` is missing (`Build.PL:80`). `make check` fails because there is no `check` target.
- Focused checks pass for `perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node` and `perl -Ilib -c lib/Munin/Node/Server.pm`. `perl -Ilib -c lib/Munin/Node/OS.pm` reports syntax OK with subroutine-redefinition warnings because it was already loaded in the same Perl process.
- Independent reproduction was blocked: `ps -p 3947104 -o pid,stat,pcpu,etime,wchan,args` returned no process row and `/proc/3947104/status` was unavailable, so there was no live process to trace. The signal was not independently reproduced.
- No relevant local wrapper was found for the inspected `select`; it is Perl’s built-in. No patch branch is selected. `HACKING.pod` says bug fixes target `stable-2.0`; the workspace is on `master`.

## Review Pass 2

RESULT: ok

The refined response is a complete no-patch diagnosis with `inferred` confidence. It distinguishes the 0.9% overall CPU measurement from the 100% kernel hot-path attribution, accurately reports the blocked validation and reproduction attempt, and the worktree has no source diff.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

Response

## Plan Pass



## Workflow Note

model: gpt-6-luna

{"type":"thread.started","thread_id":"01a0f108-0371-75d1-b1de-8fe6326c1df8"}
{"type":"item.completed","item":{"id":"item_0","type":"error","message":"Model metadata for `gpt-6-luna` not found. Defaulting to fallback metadata; this can degrade performance and cause issues."}}
{"type":"turn.started"}
{"type":"error","message":"You’ve hit your usage limit. Try again at Oct 3rd, 2026 10:32 AM."}
{"type":"turn.failed","error":{"message":"You’ve hit your usage limit. Try again at Oct 3rd, 2026 10:32 AM."}}

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

Response

## Plan Pass



## Workflow Note

model: gpt-6-luna

{"type":"thread.started","thread_id":"01a0f0ce-09ae-71b0-95a3-d85c8b469b8c"}
{"type":"item.completed","item":{"id":"item_0","type":"error","message":"Model metadata for `gpt-6-luna` not found. Defaulting to fallback metadata; this can degrade performance and cause issues."}}
{"type":"turn.started"}
{"type":"error","message":"You’ve hit your usage limit. Try again at Oct 3rd, 2026 10:32 AM."}
{"type":"turn.failed","error":{"message":"You’ve hit your usage limit. Try again at Oct 3rd, 2026 10:32 AM."}}

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

Response

## Plan Pass



## Workflow Note

model: gpt-6-luna

{"type":"thread.started","thread_id":"01a0f093-2efa-7362-8b74-f33e3a2bf93b"}
{"type":"item.completed","item":{"id":"item_0","type":"error","message":"Model metadata for `gpt-6-luna` not found. Defaulting to fallback metadata; this can degrade performance and cause issues."}}
{"type":"turn.started"}
{"type":"error","message":"You’ve hit your usage limit. Try again at Oct 3rd, 2026 10:32 AM."}
{"type":"turn.failed","error":{"message":"You’ve hit your usage limit. Try again at Oct 3rd, 2026 10:32 AM."}}

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

Response

## Plan Pass



## Workflow Note

model: gpt-6-luna

{"type":"thread.started","thread_id":"01a0f05a-5256-7f70-a02c-5d245bb71ee5"}
{"type":"item.completed","item":{"id":"item_0","type":"error","message":"Model metadata for `gpt-6-luna` not found. Defaulting to fallback metadata; this can degrade performance and cause issues."}}
{"type":"turn.started"}
{"type":"error","message":"You’ve hit your usage limit. Try again at Oct 3rd, 2026 10:32 AM."}
{"type":"turn.failed","error":{"message":"You’ve hit your usage limit. Try again at Oct 3rd, 2026 10:32 AM."}}

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

Response

## Plan Pass



## Workflow Note

model: gpt-6-luna

{"type":"thread.started","thread_id":"01a0f01f-1e27-7be3-b736-10e3878a9c37"}
{"type":"item.completed","item":{"id":"item_0","type":"error","message":"Model metadata for `gpt-6-luna` not found. Defaulting to fallback metadata; this can degrade performance and cause issues."}}
{"type":"turn.started"}
{"type":"error","message":"You’ve hit your usage limit. Try again at Oct 3rd, 2026 10:32 AM."}
{"type":"turn.failed","error":{"message":"You’ve hit your usage limit. Try again at Oct 3rd, 2026 10:32 AM."}}

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

Response

## Plan Pass



## Workflow Note

model: gpt-6-luna

{"type":"thread.started","thread_id":"01a0efe6-0524-7383-80a0-1a2ef43a9382"}
{"type":"item.completed","item":{"id":"item_0","type":"error","message":"Model metadata for `gpt-6-luna` not found. Defaulting to fallback metadata; this can degrade performance and cause issues."}}
{"type":"turn.started"}
{"type":"error","message":"You’ve hit your usage limit. Try again at Oct 3rd, 2026 10:32 AM."}
{"type":"turn.failed","error":{"message":"You’ve hit your usage limit. Try again at Oct 3rd, 2026 10:32 AM."}}

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

Response

## Plan Pass



## Workflow Note

model: gpt-6-luna

{"type":"thread.started","thread_id":"01a0efaa-a710-7bb1-b192-cd84f4f8cde9"}
{"type":"item.completed","item":{"id":"item_0","type":"error","message":"Model metadata for `gpt-6-luna` not found. Defaulting to fallback metadata; this can degrade performance and cause issues."}}
{"type":"turn.started"}
{"type":"error","message":"You’ve hit your usage limit. Try again at Oct 3rd, 2026 10:32 AM."}
{"type":"turn.failed","error":{"message":"You’ve hit your usage limit. Try again at Oct 3rd, 2026 10:32 AM."}}

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

Response

## Plan Pass



## Workflow Note

model: gpt-6-luna

{"type":"thread.started","thread_id":"01a0ef70-02b5-70c3-81b2-8f348680d84b"}
{"type":"item.completed","item":{"id":"item_0","type":"error","message":"Model metadata for `gpt-6-luna` not found. Defaulting to fallback metadata; this can degrade performance and cause issues."}}
{"type":"turn.started"}
{"type":"error","message":"You’ve hit your usage limit. Try again at Oct 3rd, 2026 10:32 AM."}
{"type":"turn.failed","error":{"message":"You’ve hit your usage limit. Try again at Oct 3rd, 2026 10:32 AM."}}

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

Response

## Plan Pass



## Workflow Note

model: gpt-6-luna

{"type":"thread.started","thread_id":"01a0ef32-8b50-7213-970e-f92d9807e40d"}
{"type":"item.completed","item":{"id":"item_0","type":"error","message":"Model metadata for `gpt-6-luna` not found. Defaulting to fallback metadata; this can degrade performance and cause issues."}}
{"type":"turn.started"}
{"type":"error","message":"You’ve hit your usage limit. Try again at Oct 3rd, 2026 10:32 AM."}
{"type":"turn.failed","error":{"message":"You’ve hit your usage limit. Try again at Oct 3rd, 2026 10:32 AM."}}

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

Response

## Plan Pass



## Workflow Note

model: gpt-6-luna

{"type":"thread.started","thread_id":"01a0eef4-f3a6-75b2-884c-0cd1c7ca883c"}
{"type":"item.completed","item":{"id":"item_0","type":"error","message":"Model metadata for `gpt-6-luna` not found. Defaulting to fallback metadata; this can degrade performance and cause issues."}}
{"type":"turn.started"}
{"type":"error","message":"You’ve hit your usage limit. Try again at Oct 3rd, 2026 10:32 AM."}
{"type":"turn.failed","error":{"message":"You’ve hit your usage limit. Try again at Oct 3rd, 2026 10:32 AM."}}

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

Response

## Plan Pass



## Workflow Note

model: gpt-6-luna

{"type":"thread.started","thread_id":"01a0eeb4-3c19-7e21-9e0c-07bb12116af6"}
{"type":"item.completed","item":{"id":"item_0","type":"error","message":"Model metadata for `gpt-6-luna` not found. Defaulting to fallback metadata; this can degrade performance and cause issues."}}
{"type":"turn.started"}
{"type":"error","message":"exceeded retry limit, last status: 429 Too Many Requests, request id: e52e8aa8-4891-4a35-ba9a-0ab8bbbc162c"}
{"type":"turn.failed","error":{"message":"exceeded retry limit, last status: 429 Too Many Requests, request id: e52e8aa8-4891-4a35-ba9a-0ab8bbbc162c"}}

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

Response

## Plan Pass



## Workflow Note

model: gpt-6-luna

{"type":"thread.started","thread_id":"01a0ee78-0778-74e3-9be1-4727e39a3700"}
{"type":"item.completed","item":{"id":"item_0","type":"error","message":"Model metadata for `gpt-6-luna` not found. Defaulting to fallback metadata; this can degrade performance and cause issues."}}
{"type":"turn.started"}
{"type":"error","message":"exceeded retry limit, last status: 429 Too Many Requests, request id: 0b0dcf23-88b3-4e3d-9595-de1805906a57"}
{"type":"turn.failed","error":{"message":"exceeded retry limit, last status: 429 Too Many Requests, request id: 0b0dcf23-88b3-4e3d-9595-de1805906a57"}}

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

Response

## Plan Pass



## Workflow Note

{"type":"item.completed","item":{"id":"item_3","type":"command_execution","command":"/bin/bash -lc \"cat ./evidence.json && printf '\\\\n--- workspace files ---\\\\n' && rg --files -g 'AGENTS.md' -g 'CONTRIBUTING*' -g 'HACKING*' -g 'README-hacking*' -g 'README*' -g 'Makefile' -g 'configure*' -g 'docs/**' -g 'dev-docs/**' | head -100 && printf '\\\\n--- root ---\\\\n' && ls -la\"","aggregated_output":"{\n  \"opportunity\": {\n    \"created_at\": \"2026-05-20T21:37:15.641855389+00:00\",\n    \"ecosystem\": null,\n    \"evidence\": {\n      \"artifact_name\": \"perl\",\n      \"artifact_path\": \"/usr/bin/perl\",\n      \"details\": {\n        \"backtrace_capture_error\": null,\n        \"backtrace_capture_status\": \"captured\",\n        \"command_line\": \"/usr/bin/perl -wT /usr/sbin/munin-node --foreground\",\n        \"common_frame_clusters\": [\n          {\n            \"frames\": [\n              \"0x00007f82eb9e87d2 in ?? () from target:<path>\",\n              \"0x00007f82eb9e87ed in ?? () from target:<path>\",\n              \"0x00007f82eba686cf in select () from target:<path>\"\n            ],\n            \"signature\": \"0x00007f82eb9e87d2 in ?? () from target:<path> | 0x00007f82eb9e87ed in ?? () from target:<path> | 0x00007f82eba686cf in select () from target:<path>\",\n            \"thread_count\": 1\n          }\n        ],\n        \"distro_id\": \"debian\",\n        \"dominant_sequence\": [\n          \"pselect6\",\n          \"pselect6\",\n          \"pselect6\"\n        ],\n        \"executable\": \"/usr/bin/perl\",\n        \"hot_path_dso\": \"[kernel.kallsyms]\",\n        \"hot_path_percent\": 100.0,\n        \"hot_path_symbol\": \"perf_ctx_enable\",\n        \"implicated_package_names\": [\n          \"linux-image-6.17.10+deb14-amd64\"\n        ],\n        \"installed_package_version\": \"5.40.1-7+b1\",\n        \"interpreter_process\": {\n          \"detection_signals\": [\n            \"native samples contain perl runtime frames\",\n            \"process command resolves to perl interpreter\"\n          ],\n          \"entrypoint_kind\": \"script\",\n          \"entrypoint_package_metadata\": {\n            \"candidate_version\": \"2.999.16-1\",\n            \"homepage\": \"https://munin-monitoring.org\",\n            \"installed_version\": \"2.0.76-7\",\n            \"package_name\": \"munin-node\",\n            \"report_url\": null,\n            \"source_package\": \"munin\"\n          },\n          \"entrypoint_package_name\": \"munin-node\",\n          \"evidence_gap\": \"Fixer saw a perl interpreter loop and a script entrypoint, but it did not prove whether the tight loop comes from script/application logic or from the runtime itself.\",\n          \"interpreter\": \"perl\",\n          \"interpreter_executable\": \"/usr/bin/perl\",\n          \"interpreter_options\": [\n            \"-wT\"\n          ],\n          \"module_options\": [],\n          \"recommended_next_steps\": [\n            \"ps -p <pid> -o pid,stat,pcpu,etime,wchan,args\",\n            \"Inspect the perl script or module entrypoint first; only patch the interpreter/runtime after proving it mishandles the workload.\",\n            \"Capture a language-level stack, trace, or minimal reproducer that ties the hot loop to the entrypoint before proposing runtime changes.\",\n            \"Keep runtime performance fixes in scope only when they also make bad script code run more predictably or cheaply without changing language semantics.\"\n          ],\n          \"runtime_package_metadata\": {\n            \"candidate_version\": \"5.42.2-1\",\n            \"homepage\": \"https://dev.perl.org/perl5/\",\n            \"installed_version\": \"5.40.1-7+b1\",\n            \"package_name\": \"perl-base\",\n            \"report_url\": null,\n            \"source_package\": \"perl\"\n          },\n          \"runtime_package_name\": \"perl-base\",\n          \"script_candidates\": [\n            \"/usr/sbin/munin-node\"\n          ],\n          \"suspected_entrypoint\": \"/usr/sbin/munin-node\"\n        },\n        \"kernel_release\": \"6.17.10+deb14-amd64\",\n        \"lock_contention_signals\": [\n          \"gdb-stderr: gdb: warning: Couldn't determine a path for the index cache directory.\"\n        ],\n        \"loop_classification\": \"busy-poll\",\n        \"loop_confidence\": 0.78,\n        \"loop_explanation\": \"The trace repeatedly returns to a poll-family syscall without meaningful blocking, which suggests a busy event-loop wakeup.\",\n        \"maps_excerpt\": \"55b55508e000-55b5550d2000 r--p 00000000 fe:00 69863045                   /usr/bin/perl\\n55b5550d2000-55b555286000 r-xp 00044000 fe:00 69863045                   /usr/bin/perl\\n55b555286000-55b55543e000 r--p 001f8000 fe:00 69863045                   /usr/bin/perl\\n55b55543e000-55b55544e000 r--p 003b0000 fe:00 69863045                   /usr/bin/perl\\n55b55544e000-55b555451000 rw-p 003c0000 fe:00 69863045                   /usr/bin/perl\\n55b555451000-55b555457000 rw-p 00000000 00:00 0 \\n55b595002000-55b5959a9000 rw-p 00000000 00:00 0                          [heap]\\n7f82eb023000-7f82eb026000 r--p 00000000 fe:00 69865541                   /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libresolv.so.2\\n7f82eb026000-7f82eb02f000 r-xp 00003000 fe:00 69865541                   /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libresolv.so.2\\n7f82eb02f000-7f82eb031000 r--p 0000c000 fe:00 69865541                   /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libresolv.so.2\\n7f82eb031000-7f82eb032000 r--p 0000e000 fe:00 69865541                   /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libresolv.so.2\\n7f82eb032000-7f82eb033000 rw-p 0000f000 fe:00 69865541                   /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libresolv.so.2\\n7f82eb033000-7f82eb035000 rw-p 00000000 00:00 0 \\n7f82eb035000-7f82eb037000 r--p 00000000 fe:00 69862981                   /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libkeyutils.so.1.10\\n7f82eb037000-7f82eb039000 r-xp 00002000 fe:00 69862981                   /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libkeyutils.so.1.10\\n7f82eb039000-7f82eb03a000 r--p 00004000 fe:00 69862981                   /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libkeyutils.so.1.10\\n7f82eb03a000-7f82eb03b000 r--p 00004000 fe:00 69862981                   /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libkeyutils.so.1.10\\n7f82eb03b000-7f82eb03c000 rw-p 00005000 fe:00 69862981                   /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libkeyutils.so.1.10\\n7f82eb03c000-7f82eb03f000 r--p 00000000 fe:00 69862486                   /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libkrb5support.so.0.1\\n7f82eb03f000-7f82eb045000 r-xp 00003000 fe:00 69862486                   /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libkrb5support.so.0.1\\n7f82eb045000-7f82eb047000 r--p 00009000 fe:00 69862486                   /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libkrb5support.so.0.1\\n7f82eb047000-7f82eb048000 r--p 0000b000 fe:00 69862486                   /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libkrb5support.so.0.1\\n7f82eb048000-7f82eb049000 rw-p 0000c000 fe:00 69862486                   /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libkrb5support.so.0.1\\n7f82eb049000-7f82eb04d000 r--p 00000000 fe:00 69863259                   /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libk5crypto.so.3.1\\n7f82eb04d000-7f82eb067000 r-xp 00004000 fe:00 69863259                   /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libk5crypto.so.3.1\\n7f82eb067000-7f82eb074000 r--p 0001e000 fe:00 69863259                   /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libk5crypto.so.3.1\\n7f82eb074000-7f82eb075000 r--p 0002b000 fe:00 69863259                   /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libk5crypto.so.3.1\\n7f82eb075000-7f82eb076000 rw-p 0002c000 fe:00 69863259                   /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libk5crypto.so.3.1\\n7f82eb076000-7f82eb099000 r--p 00000000 fe:00 69862533                   /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libkrb5.so.3.3\\n7f82eb099000-7f82eb0f9000 r-xp 00023000 fe:00 69862533                   /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libkrb5.so.3.3\\n7f82eb0f9000-7f82eb140000 r--p 00083000 fe:00 69862533                   /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libkrb5.so.3.3\\n7f82eb140000-7f82eb14d000 r--p 000c9000 fe:00 69862533                   /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libkrb5.so.3.3\\n7f82eb14d000-7f82eb150000 rw-p 000d6000 fe:00 69862533                   /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libkrb5.so.3.3\\n7f82eb150000-7f82eb15c000 r--p 00000000 fe:00 69862168                   /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libgssapi_krb5.so.2.2\\n7f82eb15c000-7f82eb194000 r-xp 0000c000 fe:00 69862168                   /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libgssapi_krb5.so.2.2\\n7f82eb194000-7f82eb1a2000 r--p 00044000 fe:00 69862168                   /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libgssapi_krb5.so.2.2\\n7f82eb1a2000-7f82eb1a4000 r--p 00051000 fe:00 69862168                   /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libgssapi_krb5.so.2.2\\n7f82eb1a4000-7f82eb1a6000 rw-p 00053000 fe:00 69862168                   /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libgssapi_krb5.so.2.2\\n7f82eb1a6000-7f82eb1ae000 r--p 00000000 fe:00 69861494                   /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libtirpc.so.3.0.0\\n7f82eb1ae000-7f82eb1ca000 r-xp 00008000 fe:00 69861494                   /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libtirpc.so.3.0.0\\n7f82eb1ca000-7f82eb1d3000 r--p 00024000 fe:00 69861494                   /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libtirpc.so.3.0.0\\n7f82eb1d3000-7f82eb1d5000 r--p 0002c000 fe:00 69861494                   /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libtirpc.so.3.0.0\\n7f82eb1d5000-7f82eb1d6000 rw-p 0002e000 fe:00 69861494                   /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libtirpc.so.3.0.0\\n7f82eb1d6000-7f82eb1db000 r--p 00000000 fe:00 69861538                   /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libnsl.so.2.0.1\\n7f82eb1db000-7f82eb1e9000 r-xp 00005000 fe:00 69861538                   /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libnsl.so.2.0.1\\n7f82eb1e9000-7f82eb1ed000 r--p 00013000 fe:00 69861538                   /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libnsl.so.2.0.1\\n7f82eb1ed000-7f82eb1ee000 r--p 00016000 fe:00 69861538                   /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libnsl.so.2.0.1\\n7f82eb1ee000-7f82eb1ef000 rw-p 00017000 fe:00 69861538                   /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libnsl.so.2.0.1\",\n        \"package_metadata\": {\n          \"candidate_version\": \"5.42.2-1\",\n          \"homepage\": \"https://dev.perl.org/perl5/\",\n          \"installed_version\": \"5.40.1-7+b1\",\n          \"package_name\": \"perl-base\",\n          \"report_url\": null,\n          \"source_package\": \"perl\"\n        },\n        \"perl_process\": {\n          \"detection_signals\": [\n            \"command line starts with Perl\",\n            \"executable looks like Perl\",\n            \"native backtrace contains Perl interpreter frames\",\n            \"poll-family syscall loop under Perl\"\n          ],\n          \"evidence_gap\": \"Fixer saw a Perl interpreter loop and script-level launch hints, but it did not retain a Perl-level stack tying the poll loop to a script line or module call.\",\n          \"follow_up_commands\": [\n            \"ps -p <pid> -o pid,stat,pcpu,etime,wchan,args\",\n            \"strace -ttT -f -e trace=pselect6,select,poll,ppoll,epoll_wait,nanosleep,clock_nanosleep -p <pid>\",\n            \"gdb --batch -p <pid> -ex 'thread apply all bt full' -ex detach -ex quit\",\n            \"Reproduce the visible Perl script with minimal input and capture its Perl-level stack or trace before proposing a source patch.\"\n          ],\n          \"include_paths\": [],\n          \"interpreter_options\": [\n            \"-wT\"\n          ],\n          \"module_options\": [],\n          \"script_candidates\": [\n            \"/usr/sbin/munin-node\"\n          ],\n          \"suspected_script\": \"/usr/sbin/munin-node\"\n        },\n        \"process_state\": \"S (sleeping)\",\n        \"profile_duration_seconds\": 3,\n        \"profile_target\": {\n          \"max_cpu_percent\": 0.9,\n          \"name\": \"perl\",\n          \"package_name\": \"perl-base\",\n          \"path\": \"/usr/bin/perl\",\n          \"process_count\": 1,\n          \"total_cpu_percent\": 0.9\n        },\n        \"raw_artifacts\": {\n          \"cmdline\": \"/var/lib/fixer/investigations/2026-05-20T21-14-14.478825921+00-00-perl-b1cf44a42291/cmdline.txt\",\n          \"cwd\": \"/var/lib/fixer/investigations/2026-05-20T21-14-14.478825921+00-00-perl-b1cf44a42291/cwd.txt\",\n          \"exe\": \"/var/lib/fixer/investigations/2026-05-20T21-14-14.478825921+00-00-perl-b1cf44a42291/exe.txt\",\n          \"fd_targets\": \"/var/lib/fixer/investigations/2026-05-20T21-14-14.478825921+00-00-perl-b1cf44a42291/fd-targets.txt\",\n          \"gdb_backtrace\": \"/var/lib/fixer/investigations/2026-05-20T21-14-14.478825921+00-00-perl-b1cf44a42291/gdb-bt.txt\",\n          \"gdb_backtrace_full\": \"/var/lib/fixer/investigations/2026-05-20T21-14-14.478825921+00-00-perl-b1cf44a42291/gdb-bt-full.txt\",\n          \"io\": \"/var/lib/fixer/investigations/2026-05-20T21-14-14.478825921+00-00-perl-b1cf44a42291/io.txt\",\n          \"proc_maps\": \"/var/lib/fixer/investigations/2026-05-20T21-14-14.478825921+00-00-perl-b1cf44a42291/maps.txt\",\n          \"root\": \"/var/lib/fixer/investigations/2026-05-20T21-14-14.478825921+00-00-perl-b1cf44a42291/root.txt\",\n          \"sched\": \"/var/lib/fixer/investigations/2026-05-20T21-14-14.478825921+00-00-perl-b1cf44a42291/sched.txt\",\n          \"stack\": \"/var/lib/fixer/investigations/2026-05-20T21-14-14.478825921+00-00-perl-b1cf44a42291/stack.txt\",\n          \"status\": \"/var/lib/fixer/investigations/2026-05-20T21-14-14.478825921+00-00-perl-b1cf44a42291/status.txt\",\n          \"strace\": \"/var/lib/fixer/investigations/2026-05-20T21-14-14.478825921+00-00-perl-b1cf44a42291/strace.log\",\n          \"strace_stderr\": \"/var/lib/fixer/investigations/2026-05-20T21-14-14.478825921+00-00-perl-b1cf44a42291/strace.stderr.txt\",\n          \"wchan\": \"/var/lib/fixer/investigations/2026-05-20T21-14-14.478825921+00-00-perl-b1cf44a42291/wchan.txt\"\n        },\n        \"raw_backtrace_excerpt\": \"Thread 1 (Thread 0x7f82eb914b80 (LWP 3947104) \\\"munin-node\\\"):\\n#0  0x00007f82eb9e87d2 in ?? () from target:<path>\\n#1  0x00007f82eb9e87ed in ?? () from target:<path>\\n#2  0x00007f82eba686cf in select () from target:<path>\\n#3  0x000055b5551b8ee4 in ?? ()\\n#4  0x000055b55521a496 in Perl_runops_standard ()\\n#5  0x000055b555100b85 in perl_run ()\\n#6  0x000055b5550d35ae in main ()\",\n        \"remote_finding_id\": 90992,\n        \"remote_opportunity_id\": 90992,\n        \"representative_backtraces\": [\n          {\n            \"frames\": [\n              \"0x00007f82eb9e87d2 in ?? () from target:<path>\",\n              \"0x00007f82eb9e87ed in ?? () from target:<path>\",\n              \"0x00007f82eba686cf in select () from target:<path>\",\n              \"0x000055b5551b8ee4 in ?? ()\",\n              \"0x000055b55521a496 in Perl_runops_standard ()\",\n              \"0x000055b555100b85 in perl_run ()\",\n              \"0x000055b5550d35ae in main ()\"\n            ],\n            \"label\": \"Thread 1 (Thread 0x7f82eb914b80 (LWP 3947104) \\\"munin-node\\\"):\",\n            \"lwp\": 3947104,\n            \"thread_count\": 1\n          }\n        ],\n        \"richer_evidence_included\": true,\n        \"sampled_pid\": 3947104,\n        \"sampled_pid_count\": 1,\n        \"sampled_pids\": [\n          3947104\n        ],\n        \"sched_excerpt\": \"munin-node (3947104, #threads: 1)\\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\\nse.exec_start                                :   13251380432.169783\\nse.vruntime                                  :            92.977411\\nse.sum_exec_runtime                          :           186.869688\\nse.nr_migrations                             :                   28\\nnr_switches                                  :                  240\\nnr_voluntary_switches                        :                  236\\nnr_involuntary_switches                      :                    4\\nse.load.weight                               :              1048576\\nse.avg.load_sum                              :                   57\\nse.avg.runnable_sum                          :                58368\\nse.avg.util_sum                              :                58368\\nse.avg.load_avg                              :                    0\\nse.avg.runnable_avg                          :                    0\\nse.avg.util_avg                              :                    0\\nse.avg.last_update_time                      :    13250592748856320\\nse.avg.util_est                              :                    8\\nuclamp.min                                   :                    0\\nuclamp.max                                   :                 1024\\neffective uclamp.min                         :                    0\\neffective uclamp.max                         :                 1024\\npolicy                                       :                    0\\nprio                                         :                  120\",\n        \"shared_opportunity\": true,\n        \"source_hotspot_kind\": \"perf-profile\",\n        \"source_profile_fingerprint\": \"b1cf44a422916ffd405d0fcea8e62f9c49cb337349788b8fe8c6fc179c1b5234\",\n        \"stack_excerpt\": \"[<0>] poll_schedule_timeout.constprop.0+0x37/0x90\\n[<0>] do_select+0x67f/0x950\\n[<0>] core_sys_select+0x277/0x490\\n[<0>] do_pselect.constprop.0+0xe9/0x180\\n[<0>] __x64_sys_pselect6+0x59/0x70\\n[<0>] do_syscall_64+0x82/0x320\\n[<0>] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x76/0x7e\",\n        \"status_excerpt\": \"Name:\\tmunin-node\\nUmask:\\t0022\\nState:\\tS (sleeping)\\nTgid:\\t3947104\\nNgid:\\t0\\nPid:\\t3947104\\nPPid:\\t1\\nTracerPid:\\t0\\nUid:\\t0\\t0\\t0\\t0\\nGid:\\t0\\t0\\t0\\t0\\nFDSize:\\t1024\\nGroups:\\t0 0 \\nNStgid:\\t3947104\\nNSpid:\\t3947104\\nNSpgid:\\t3947104\\nNSsid:\\t3947104\\nKthread:\\t0\\nVmPeak:\\t   26588 kB\\nVmSize:\\t   26588 kB\\nVmLck:\\t       0 kB\\nVmPin:\\t       0 kB\\nVmHWM:\\t   17088 kB\\nVmRSS:\\t   17088 kB\\nRssAnon:\\t   10224 kB\",\n        \"strace_duration_seconds\": 5,\n        \"strace_excerpt\": [\n          \"3947104 00:14:14.481204 pselect6(8, [5], NULL, NULL, {tv_sec=1, tv_nsec=813665550}, NULL) = 0 (Timeout) <1.815530>\",\n          \"3947104 00:14:16.296962 pselect6(8, [5], NULL, NULL, {tv_sec=2, tv_nsec=0}, NULL) = 0 (Timeout) <2.002044>\",\n          \"3947104 00:14:18.299106 pselect6(8, [5], NULL, NULL, {tv_sec=2, tv_nsec=0}, NULL\"\n        ],\n        \"strace_line_count\": 3,\n        \"subsystem\": \"runaway-process\",\n        \"thread_backtrace_summary\": \"thread backtraces show 1 thread(s) around 0x00007f82eb9e87d2 in ?? () from target:<path>\",\n        \"thread_summaries\": [\n          {\n            \"frame_count\": 7,\n            \"lwp\": 3947104,\n            \"thread_label\": \"Thread 1 (Thread 0x7f82eb914b80 (LWP 3947104) \\\"munin-node\\\"):\",\n            \"top_frame\": \"0x00007f82eb9e87d2 in ?? () from target:<path>\"\n          }\n        ],\n        \"top_hot_symbols\": [\n          \"perf_ctx_enable (100.00% in vmlinuz-6.17.10+deb14-amd64)\"\n        ],\n        \"top_syscalls\": [\n          {\n            \"count\": 3,\n            \"name\": \"pselect6\"\n          }\n        ],\n        \"wchan\": \"poll_schedule_timeout.constprop.0\"\n      },\n      \"package_name\": \"perl-base\",\n      \"severity\": \"high\"\n    },\n    \"finding_id\": 90992,\n    \"id\": 90992,\n    \"kind\": \"investigation\",\n    \"repo_root\": null,\n    \"score\": 106,\n    \"state\": \"open\",\n    \"summary\": \"perl is stuck in a likely busy poll loop: 100.00% of sampled CPU passed through perf_ctx_enable, with repeated thread backtraces show 1 thread(s) around 0x00007f82eb9e87d2 in ?? () from target:<path>.\",\n    \"title\": \"Runaway CPU investigation for perl\",\n    \"updated_at\": \"2026-09-29T17:28:51.625532849+00:00\"\n  },\n  \"source_workspace\": {\n    \"acquisition_note\": \"Fetched Debian source package via apt-get source.\",\n    \"ecosystem\": \"debian\",\n    \"homepage\": \"https://munin-monitoring.org\",\n    \"package_name\": \"munin-node\",\n    \"repo_root\": \"./source\",\n    \"source_kind\": \"debian-source\",\n    \"source_package\": \"munin\"\n  },\n  \"workspace\": {\n    \"acquisition_note\": \"Fetched Debian source package via apt-get source. Fixer created an isolated job snapshot for autonomous Codex execution.\",\n    \"ecosystem\": \"debian\",\n    \"homepage\": \"https://munin-monitoring.org\",\n    \"package_name\": \"munin-node\",\n    \"repo_root\": \"./workspace\",\n    \"source_kind\": \"debian-source\",\n    \"source_package\": \"munin\"\n  }\n}\n--- workspace files ---\nCONTRIBUTING.md\nREADME.build-refactoring\ndoc/Makefile\nREADME.OSX\nREADME.HP-UX\nMakefile\nREADME.rst\nHACKING.pod\ndists/README\ndebian/README.PluginConfiguration\ncontrib/python-plugin/README\ndebian/README.source\nt/tls/Makefile\nt/tls/README\n\n--- root ---\ntotal 760\ndrwxr-xr-x 19 root root   4096 Sep 29 21:29 .\ndrwxr-xr-x  3 root root   4096 Sep 29 21:28 ..\ndr-xr-xr-x  2 root root     40 Sep 29 21:29 .agents\n-rw-r--r--  1 root root   2012 Jan 12  2022 .codespell.exclude\n-rw-r--r--  1 root root     25 Jan 12  2022 .codespell.ignore-words\ndr-xr-xr-x  2 root root     40 Sep 29 21:29 .codex\n-rw-r--r--  1 root root     33 Jan 12  2022 .dockerignore\n-rw-r--r--  1 root root     85 Jan 12  2022 .flake8\ndrwxr-xr-x  7 root root   4096 Sep 29 21:28 .git\n-rw-r--r--  1 root root    128 Jan 12  2022 .gitattributes\ndrwxr-xr-x  4 root root   4096 Jan 12  2022 .github\n-rw-r--r--  1 root root    458 Jan 12  2022 .gitignore\ndrwxr-xr-x  6 root root   4096 May 21 01:37 .pc\n-rw-r--r--  1 root root   1102 Jan 12  2022 .perlcriticrc\n-rw-r--r--  1 root root   1252 Jan 12  2022 .perltidyrc\n-rw-r--r--  1 root root   1576 Jan 12  2022 Announce-2.0\n-rwxr-xr-x  1 root root   9957 Jan 12  2022 Build.PL\n-rw-r--r--  1 root root    824 Jan 12  2022 CONTRIBUTING.md\n-rw-r--r--  1 root root   1713 Jan 12  2022 COPYING\n-rw-r--r--  1 root root 365418 Jan 12  2022 ChangeLog\n-rw-r--r--  1 root root   1606 Jan 12  2022 Checklist\n-rw-r--r--  1 root root    438 Jan 12  2022 Dockerfile\n-rw-r--r--  1 root root   2398 Jan 12  2022 Dockerfile.base\n-rw-r--r--  1 root root     43 Jan 12  2022 Dockerfile.dev\n-rw-r--r--  1 root root   6471 Jan 12  2022 HACKING.pod\n-rw-r--r--  1 root root    771 Jan 12  2022 INSTALL.rst\n-rw-r--r--  1 root root   1260 Jan 12  2022 MANIFEST.SKIP\n-rw-r--r--  1 root root   8156 Jan 12  2022 Makefile\n-rw-r--r--  1 root root   6439 Jan 12  2022 Makefile.config\n-rw-r--r--  1 root root   1394 Jan 12  2022 Makefile.javaplugin\n-rw-r--r--  1 root root    535 Jan 12  2022 README.HP-UX\n-rw-r--r--  1 root root   1012 Jan 12  2022 README.OSX\n-rw-r--r--  1 root root   1792 Jan 12  2022 README.build-refactoring\n-rw-r--r--  1 root root   2954 Jan 12  2022 README.rst\n-rw-r--r--  1 root root      9 Jan 12  2022 RELEASE\n-rw-r--r--  1 root root   2087 Jan 12  2022 authors\ndrwxr-xr-x  5 root root   4096 Jan 12  2022 contrib\n-rw-r--r--  1 root root   1743 Jan 12  2022 cpanfile\ndrwxr-xr-x  6 root root   4096 Feb 10  2022 debian\ndrwxr-xr-x  2 root root   4096 Jan 12  2022 dev_scripts\ndrwxr-xr-x  2 root root   4096 Jan 12  2022 dists\ndrwxr-xr-x 17 root root   4096 Jan 12  2022 doc\ndrwxr-xr-x  2 root root   4096 Jan 12  2022 etc\n-rwxr-xr-x  1 root root   2803 Jan 12  2022 getversion\ndrwxr-xr-x  3 root root   4096 Jan 12  2022 lib\n-rw-r--r--  1 root root  12025 Jan 12  2022 logo-horizontal-neg.svg\n-rw-r--r--  1 root root  11982 Jan 12  2022 logo-horizontal.svg\n-rw-r--r--  1 root root 129413 Jan 12  2022 logo.eps\n-rw-r--r--  1 root root  26569 Jan 12  2022 logo.png\n-rw-r--r--  1 root root   9871 Jan 12  2022 logo.svg\ndrwxr-xr-x 15 root root   4096 Jan 12  2022 plugins\ndrwxr-xr-x  2 root root   4096 May 21 01:37 script\ndrwxr-xr-x  5 root root   4096 Jan 12  2022 t\ndrwxr-xr-x  4 root root   4096 Jan 12  2022 web\ndrwxr-xr-x  2 root root   4096 Jan 12  2022 xt\n","exit_code":0,"status":"completed"}}
{"type":"item.completed","item":{"id":"item_4","type":"reasoning","text":"**Inspecting script and docs**"}}
{"type":"item.started","item":{"id":"item_5","type":"collab_tool_call","tool":"spawn_agent","sender_thread_id":"01a0ee36-56dd-70b0-ace1-e320c870d40e","receiver_thread_ids":[],"prompt":"Read-only scout: inspect munin-node script entrypoint and nearby event loop/callers relevant to evidence pselect/busy-poll. Do not edit, spawn agents, run recursive review, external/public/destructive actions, or duplicate live-state operations. Report file/line references, whether source shows plausible tight loop, and local IO/process helpers.","agents_states":{},"status":"in_progress"}}
{"type":"item.completed","item":{"id":"item_5","type":"collab_tool_call","tool":"spawn_agent","sender_thread_id":"01a0ee36-56dd-70b0-ace1-e320c870d40e","receiver_thread_ids":["01a0ee36-8be6-7572-b84c-db7bfad615cc"],"prompt":"Read-only scout: inspect munin-node script entrypoint and nearby event loop/callers relevant to evidence pselect/busy-poll. Do not edit, spawn agents, run recursive review, external/public/destructive actions, or duplicate live-state operations. Report file/line references, whether source shows plausible tight loop, and local IO/process helpers.","agents_states":{"01a0ee36-8be6-7572-b84c-db7bfad615cc":{"status":"pending_init","message":null}},"status":"completed"}}
{"type":"item.started","item":{"id":"item_6","type":"collab_tool_call","tool":"spawn_agent","sender_thread_id":"01a0ee36-56dd-70b0-ace1-e320c870d40e","receiver_thread_ids":[],"prompt":"Read-only scout: inspect CONTRIBUTING.md, HACKING.pod, Makefile build/test targets, and git branch/remotes metadata. Do not edit, spawn agents, run recursive review, or do external/destructive actions. Report relevant maintainer conventions, exact project-level validation command and likely clean-checkout constraints, plus default integration branch evidence.","agents_states":{},"status":"in_progress"}}
{"type":"item.completed","item":{"id":"item_6","type":"collab_tool_call","tool":"spawn_agent","sender_thread_id":"01a0ee36-56dd-70b0-ace1-e320c870d40e","receiver_thread_ids":["01a0ee36-9ccc-7893-9a23-8957ced25055"],"prompt":"Read-only scout: inspect CONTRIBUTING.md, HACKING.pod, Makefile build/test targets, and git branch/remotes metadata. Do not edit, spawn agents, run recursive review, or do external/destructive actions. Report relevant maintainer conventions, exact project-level validation command and likely clean-checkout constraints, plus default integration branch evidence.","agents_states":{"01a0ee36-9ccc-7893-9a23-8957ced25055":{"status":"pending_init","message":null}},"status":"completed"}}
{"type":"error","message":"exceeded retry limit, last status: 429 Too Many Requests, request id: 17fc73da-91ea-46c7-84e0-b38017cc561a"}
{"type":"turn.failed","error":{"message":"exceeded retry limit, last status: 429 Too Many Requests, request id: 17fc73da-91ea-46c7-84e0-b38017cc561a"}}

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

Response

## Plan Pass



## Workflow Note

{"type":"item.completed","item":{"id":"item_3","type":"command_execution","command":"/bin/bash -lc \"cat ./evidence.json; printf '\\\\n--- workspace ---\\\\n'; pwd; rg --files -g 'AGENTS.md' -g 'CONTRIBUTING*' -g 'HACKING*' -g 'README-hacking*' -g 'README*' -g 'Makefile' -g 'makefile' -g 'configure' -g 'docs/**' -g 'dev-docs/**' | head -200\"","aggregated_output":"{\n  \"opportunity\": {\n    \"created_at\": \"2026-05-20T21:37:15.641855389+00:00\",\n    \"ecosystem\": null,\n    \"evidence\": {\n      \"artifact_name\": \"perl\",\n      \"artifact_path\": \"/usr/bin/perl\",\n      \"details\": {\n        \"backtrace_capture_error\": null,\n        \"backtrace_capture_status\": \"captured\",\n        \"command_line\": \"/usr/bin/perl -wT /usr/sbin/munin-node --foreground\",\n        \"common_frame_clusters\": [\n          {\n            \"frames\": [\n              \"0x00007f82eb9e87d2 in ?? () from target:<path>\",\n              \"0x00007f82eb9e87ed in ?? () from target:<path>\",\n              \"0x00007f82eba686cf in select () from target:<path>\"\n            ],\n            \"signature\": \"0x00007f82eb9e87d2 in ?? () from target:<path> | 0x00007f82eb9e87ed in ?? () from target:<path> | 0x00007f82eba686cf in select () from target:<path>\",\n            \"thread_count\": 1\n          }\n        ],\n        \"distro_id\": \"debian\",\n        \"dominant_sequence\": [\n          \"pselect6\",\n          \"pselect6\",\n          \"pselect6\"\n        ],\n        \"executable\": \"/usr/bin/perl\",\n        \"hot_path_dso\": \"[kernel.kallsyms]\",\n        \"hot_path_percent\": 100.0,\n        \"hot_path_symbol\": \"perf_ctx_enable\",\n        \"implicated_package_names\": [\n          \"linux-image-6.17.10+deb14-amd64\"\n        ],\n        \"installed_package_version\": \"5.40.1-7+b1\",\n        \"interpreter_process\": {\n          \"detection_signals\": [\n            \"native samples contain perl runtime frames\",\n            \"process command resolves to perl interpreter\"\n          ],\n          \"entrypoint_kind\": \"script\",\n          \"entrypoint_package_metadata\": {\n            \"candidate_version\": \"2.999.16-1\",\n            \"homepage\": \"https://munin-monitoring.org\",\n            \"installed_version\": \"2.0.76-7\",\n            \"package_name\": \"munin-node\",\n            \"report_url\": null,\n            \"source_package\": \"munin\"\n          },\n          \"entrypoint_package_name\": \"munin-node\",\n          \"evidence_gap\": \"Fixer saw a perl interpreter loop and a script entrypoint, but it did not prove whether the tight loop comes from script/application logic or from the runtime itself.\",\n          \"interpreter\": \"perl\",\n          \"interpreter_executable\": \"/usr/bin/perl\",\n          \"interpreter_options\": [\n            \"-wT\"\n          ],\n          \"module_options\": [],\n          \"recommended_next_steps\": [\n            \"ps -p <pid> -o pid,stat,pcpu,etime,wchan,args\",\n            \"Inspect the perl script or module entrypoint first; only patch the interpreter/runtime after proving it mishandles the workload.\",\n            \"Capture a language-level stack, trace, or minimal reproducer that ties the hot loop to the entrypoint before proposing runtime changes.\",\n            \"Keep runtime performance fixes in scope only when they also make bad script code run more predictably or cheaply without changing language semantics.\"\n          ],\n          \"runtime_package_metadata\": {\n            \"candidate_version\": \"5.42.2-1\",\n            \"homepage\": \"https://dev.perl.org/perl5/\",\n            \"installed_version\": \"5.40.1-7+b1\",\n            \"package_name\": \"perl-base\",\n            \"report_url\": null,\n            \"source_package\": \"perl\"\n          },\n          \"runtime_package_name\": \"perl-base\",\n          \"script_candidates\": [\n            \"/usr/sbin/munin-node\"\n          ],\n          \"suspected_entrypoint\": \"/usr/sbin/munin-node\"\n        },\n        \"kernel_release\": \"6.17.10+deb14-amd64\",\n        \"lock_contention_signals\": [\n          \"gdb-stderr: gdb: warning: Couldn't determine a path for the index cache directory.\"\n        ],\n        \"loop_classification\": \"busy-poll\",\n        \"loop_confidence\": 0.78,\n        \"loop_explanation\": \"The trace repeatedly returns to a poll-family syscall without meaningful blocking, which suggests a busy event-loop wakeup.\",\n        \"maps_excerpt\": \"55b55508e000-55b5550d2000 r--p 00000000 fe:00 69863045                   /usr/bin/perl\\n55b5550d2000-55b555286000 r-xp 00044000 fe:00 69863045                   /usr/bin/perl\\n55b555286000-55b55543e000 r--p 001f8000 fe:00 69863045                   /usr/bin/perl\\n55b55543e000-55b55544e000 r--p 003b0000 fe:00 69863045                   /usr/bin/perl\\n55b55544e000-55b555451000 rw-p 003c0000 fe:00 69863045                   /usr/bin/perl\\n55b555451000-55b555457000 rw-p 00000000 00:00 0 \\n55b595002000-55b5959a9000 rw-p 00000000 00:00 0                          [heap]\\n7f82eb023000-7f82eb026000 r--p 00000000 fe:00 69865541                   /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libresolv.so.2\\n7f82eb026000-7f82eb02f000 r-xp 00003000 fe:00 69865541                   /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libresolv.so.2\\n7f82eb02f000-7f82eb031000 r--p 0000c000 fe:00 69865541                   /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libresolv.so.2\\n7f82eb031000-7f82eb032000 r--p 0000e000 fe:00 69865541                   /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libresolv.so.2\\n7f82eb032000-7f82eb033000 rw-p 0000f000 fe:00 69865541                   /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libresolv.so.2\\n7f82eb033000-7f82eb035000 rw-p 00000000 00:00 0 \\n7f82eb035000-7f82eb037000 r--p 00000000 fe:00 69862981                   /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libkeyutils.so.1.10\\n7f82eb037000-7f82eb039000 r-xp 00002000 fe:00 69862981                   /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libkeyutils.so.1.10\\n7f82eb039000-7f82eb03a000 r--p 00004000 fe:00 69862981                   /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libkeyutils.so.1.10\\n7f82eb03a000-7f82eb03b000 r--p 00004000 fe:00 69862981                   /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libkeyutils.so.1.10\\n7f82eb03b000-7f82eb03c000 rw-p 00005000 fe:00 69862981                   /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libkeyutils.so.1.10\\n7f82eb03c000-7f82eb03f000 r--p 00000000 fe:00 69862486                   /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libkrb5support.so.0.1\\n7f82eb03f000-7f82eb045000 r-xp 00003000 fe:00 69862486                   /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libkrb5support.so.0.1\\n7f82eb045000-7f82eb047000 r--p 00009000 fe:00 69862486                   /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libkrb5support.so.0.1\\n7f82eb047000-7f82eb048000 r--p 0000b000 fe:00 69862486                   /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libkrb5support.so.0.1\\n7f82eb048000-7f82eb049000 rw-p 0000c000 fe:00 69862486                   /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libkrb5support.so.0.1\\n7f82eb049000-7f82eb04d000 r--p 00000000 fe:00 69863259                   /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libk5crypto.so.3.1\\n7f82eb04d000-7f82eb067000 r-xp 00004000 fe:00 69863259                   /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libk5crypto.so.3.1\\n7f82eb067000-7f82eb074000 r--p 0001e000 fe:00 69863259                   /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libk5crypto.so.3.1\\n7f82eb074000-7f82eb075000 r--p 0002b000 fe:00 69863259                   /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libk5crypto.so.3.1\\n7f82eb075000-7f82eb076000 rw-p 0002c000 fe:00 69863259                   /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libk5crypto.so.3.1\\n7f82eb076000-7f82eb099000 r--p 00000000 fe:00 69862533                   /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libkrb5.so.3.3\\n7f82eb099000-7f82eb0f9000 r-xp 00023000 fe:00 69862533                   /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libkrb5.so.3.3\\n7f82eb0f9000-7f82eb140000 r--p 00083000 fe:00 69862533                   /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libkrb5.so.3.3\\n7f82eb140000-7f82eb14d000 r--p 000c9000 fe:00 69862533                   /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libkrb5.so.3.3\\n7f82eb14d000-7f82eb150000 rw-p 000d6000 fe:00 69862533                   /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libkrb5.so.3.3\\n7f82eb150000-7f82eb15c000 r--p 00000000 fe:00 69862168                   /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libgssapi_krb5.so.2.2\\n7f82eb15c000-7f82eb194000 r-xp 0000c000 fe:00 69862168                   /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libgssapi_krb5.so.2.2\\n7f82eb194000-7f82eb1a2000 r--p 00044000 fe:00 69862168                   /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libgssapi_krb5.so.2.2\\n7f82eb1a2000-7f82eb1a4000 r--p 00051000 fe:00 69862168                   /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libgssapi_krb5.so.2.2\\n7f82eb1a4000-7f82eb1a6000 rw-p 00053000 fe:00 69862168                   /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libgssapi_krb5.so.2.2\\n7f82eb1a6000-7f82eb1ae000 r--p 00000000 fe:00 69861494                   /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libtirpc.so.3.0.0\\n7f82eb1ae000-7f82eb1ca000 r-xp 00008000 fe:00 69861494                   /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libtirpc.so.3.0.0\\n7f82eb1ca000-7f82eb1d3000 r--p 00024000 fe:00 69861494                   /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libtirpc.so.3.0.0\\n7f82eb1d3000-7f82eb1d5000 r--p 0002c000 fe:00 69861494                   /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libtirpc.so.3.0.0\\n7f82eb1d5000-7f82eb1d6000 rw-p 0002e000 fe:00 69861494                   /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libtirpc.so.3.0.0\\n7f82eb1d6000-7f82eb1db000 r--p 00000000 fe:00 69861538                   /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libnsl.so.2.0.1\\n7f82eb1db000-7f82eb1e9000 r-xp 00005000 fe:00 69861538                   /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libnsl.so.2.0.1\\n7f82eb1e9000-7f82eb1ed000 r--p 00013000 fe:00 69861538                   /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libnsl.so.2.0.1\\n7f82eb1ed000-7f82eb1ee000 r--p 00016000 fe:00 69861538                   /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libnsl.so.2.0.1\\n7f82eb1ee000-7f82eb1ef000 rw-p 00017000 fe:00 69861538                   /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libnsl.so.2.0.1\",\n        \"package_metadata\": {\n          \"candidate_version\": \"5.42.2-1\",\n          \"homepage\": \"https://dev.perl.org/perl5/\",\n          \"installed_version\": \"5.40.1-7+b1\",\n          \"package_name\": \"perl-base\",\n          \"report_url\": null,\n          \"source_package\": \"perl\"\n        },\n        \"perl_process\": {\n          \"detection_signals\": [\n            \"command line starts with Perl\",\n            \"executable looks like Perl\",\n            \"native backtrace contains Perl interpreter frames\",\n            \"poll-family syscall loop under Perl\"\n          ],\n          \"evidence_gap\": \"Fixer saw a Perl interpreter loop and script-level launch hints, but it did not retain a Perl-level stack tying the poll loop to a script line or module call.\",\n          \"follow_up_commands\": [\n            \"ps -p <pid> -o pid,stat,pcpu,etime,wchan,args\",\n            \"strace -ttT -f -e trace=pselect6,select,poll,ppoll,epoll_wait,nanosleep,clock_nanosleep -p <pid>\",\n            \"gdb --batch -p <pid> -ex 'thread apply all bt full' -ex detach -ex quit\",\n            \"Reproduce the visible Perl script with minimal input and capture its Perl-level stack or trace before proposing a source patch.\"\n          ],\n          \"include_paths\": [],\n          \"interpreter_options\": [\n            \"-wT\"\n          ],\n          \"module_options\": [],\n          \"script_candidates\": [\n            \"/usr/sbin/munin-node\"\n          ],\n          \"suspected_script\": \"/usr/sbin/munin-node\"\n        },\n        \"process_state\": \"S (sleeping)\",\n        \"profile_duration_seconds\": 3,\n        \"profile_target\": {\n          \"max_cpu_percent\": 0.9,\n          \"name\": \"perl\",\n          \"package_name\": \"perl-base\",\n          \"path\": \"/usr/bin/perl\",\n          \"process_count\": 1,\n          \"total_cpu_percent\": 0.9\n        },\n        \"raw_artifacts\": {\n          \"cmdline\": \"/var/lib/fixer/investigations/2026-05-20T21-14-14.478825921+00-00-perl-b1cf44a42291/cmdline.txt\",\n          \"cwd\": \"/var/lib/fixer/investigations/2026-05-20T21-14-14.478825921+00-00-perl-b1cf44a42291/cwd.txt\",\n          \"exe\": \"/var/lib/fixer/investigations/2026-05-20T21-14-14.478825921+00-00-perl-b1cf44a42291/exe.txt\",\n          \"fd_targets\": \"/var/lib/fixer/investigations/2026-05-20T21-14-14.478825921+00-00-perl-b1cf44a42291/fd-targets.txt\",\n          \"gdb_backtrace\": \"/var/lib/fixer/investigations/2026-05-20T21-14-14.478825921+00-00-perl-b1cf44a42291/gdb-bt.txt\",\n          \"gdb_backtrace_full\": \"/var/lib/fixer/investigations/2026-05-20T21-14-14.478825921+00-00-perl-b1cf44a42291/gdb-bt-full.txt\",\n          \"io\": \"/var/lib/fixer/investigations/2026-05-20T21-14-14.478825921+00-00-perl-b1cf44a42291/io.txt\",\n          \"proc_maps\": \"/var/lib/fixer/investigations/2026-05-20T21-14-14.478825921+00-00-perl-b1cf44a42291/maps.txt\",\n          \"root\": \"/var/lib/fixer/investigations/2026-05-20T21-14-14.478825921+00-00-perl-b1cf44a42291/root.txt\",\n          \"sched\": \"/var/lib/fixer/investigations/2026-05-20T21-14-14.478825921+00-00-perl-b1cf44a42291/sched.txt\",\n          \"stack\": \"/var/lib/fixer/investigations/2026-05-20T21-14-14.478825921+00-00-perl-b1cf44a42291/stack.txt\",\n          \"status\": \"/var/lib/fixer/investigations/2026-05-20T21-14-14.478825921+00-00-perl-b1cf44a42291/status.txt\",\n          \"strace\": \"/var/lib/fixer/investigations/2026-05-20T21-14-14.478825921+00-00-perl-b1cf44a42291/strace.log\",\n          \"strace_stderr\": \"/var/lib/fixer/investigations/2026-05-20T21-14-14.478825921+00-00-perl-b1cf44a42291/strace.stderr.txt\",\n          \"wchan\": \"/var/lib/fixer/investigations/2026-05-20T21-14-14.478825921+00-00-perl-b1cf44a42291/wchan.txt\"\n        },\n        \"raw_backtrace_excerpt\": \"Thread 1 (Thread 0x7f82eb914b80 (LWP 3947104) \\\"munin-node\\\"):\\n#0  0x00007f82eb9e87d2 in ?? () from target:<path>\\n#1  0x00007f82eb9e87ed in ?? () from target:<path>\\n#2  0x00007f82eba686cf in select () from target:<path>\\n#3  0x000055b5551b8ee4 in ?? ()\\n#4  0x000055b55521a496 in Perl_runops_standard ()\\n#5  0x000055b555100b85 in perl_run ()\\n#6  0x000055b5550d35ae in main ()\",\n        \"remote_finding_id\": 90992,\n        \"remote_opportunity_id\": 90992,\n        \"representative_backtraces\": [\n          {\n            \"frames\": [\n              \"0x00007f82eb9e87d2 in ?? () from target:<path>\",\n              \"0x00007f82eb9e87ed in ?? () from target:<path>\",\n              \"0x00007f82eba686cf in select () from target:<path>\",\n              \"0x000055b5551b8ee4 in ?? ()\",\n              \"0x000055b55521a496 in Perl_runops_standard ()\",\n              \"0x000055b555100b85 in perl_run ()\",\n              \"0x000055b5550d35ae in main ()\"\n            ],\n            \"label\": \"Thread 1 (Thread 0x7f82eb914b80 (LWP 3947104) \\\"munin-node\\\"):\",\n            \"lwp\": 3947104,\n            \"thread_count\": 1\n          }\n        ],\n        \"richer_evidence_included\": true,\n        \"sampled_pid\": 3947104,\n        \"sampled_pid_count\": 1,\n        \"sampled_pids\": [\n          3947104\n        ],\n        \"sched_excerpt\": \"munin-node (3947104, #threads: 1)\\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\\nse.exec_start                                :   13251380432.169783\\nse.vruntime                                  :            92.977411\\nse.sum_exec_runtime                          :           186.869688\\nse.nr_migrations                             :                   28\\nnr_switches                                  :                  240\\nnr_voluntary_switches                        :                  236\\nnr_involuntary_switches                      :                    4\\nse.load.weight                               :              1048576\\nse.avg.load_sum                              :                   57\\nse.avg.runnable_sum                          :                58368\\nse.avg.util_sum                              :                58368\\nse.avg.load_avg                              :                    0\\nse.avg.runnable_avg                          :                    0\\nse.avg.util_avg                              :                    0\\nse.avg.last_update_time                      :    13250592748856320\\nse.avg.util_est                              :                    8\\nuclamp.min                                   :                    0\\nuclamp.max                                   :                 1024\\neffective uclamp.min                         :                    0\\neffective uclamp.max                         :                 1024\\npolicy                                       :                    0\\nprio                                         :                  120\",\n        \"shared_opportunity\": true,\n        \"source_hotspot_kind\": \"perf-profile\",\n        \"source_profile_fingerprint\": \"b1cf44a422916ffd405d0fcea8e62f9c49cb337349788b8fe8c6fc179c1b5234\",\n        \"stack_excerpt\": \"[<0>] poll_schedule_timeout.constprop.0+0x37/0x90\\n[<0>] do_select+0x67f/0x950\\n[<0>] core_sys_select+0x277/0x490\\n[<0>] do_pselect.constprop.0+0xe9/0x180\\n[<0>] __x64_sys_pselect6+0x59/0x70\\n[<0>] do_syscall_64+0x82/0x320\\n[<0>] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x76/0x7e\",\n        \"status_excerpt\": \"Name:\\tmunin-node\\nUmask:\\t0022\\nState:\\tS (sleeping)\\nTgid:\\t3947104\\nNgid:\\t0\\nPid:\\t3947104\\nPPid:\\t1\\nTracerPid:\\t0\\nUid:\\t0\\t0\\t0\\t0\\nGid:\\t0\\t0\\t0\\t0\\nFDSize:\\t1024\\nGroups:\\t0 0 \\nNStgid:\\t3947104\\nNSpid:\\t3947104\\nNSpgid:\\t3947104\\nNSsid:\\t3947104\\nKthread:\\t0\\nVmPeak:\\t   26588 kB\\nVmSize:\\t   26588 kB\\nVmLck:\\t       0 kB\\nVmPin:\\t       0 kB\\nVmHWM:\\t   17088 kB\\nVmRSS:\\t   17088 kB\\nRssAnon:\\t   10224 kB\",\n        \"strace_duration_seconds\": 5,\n        \"strace_excerpt\": [\n          \"3947104 00:14:14.481204 pselect6(8, [5], NULL, NULL, {tv_sec=1, tv_nsec=813665550}, NULL) = 0 (Timeout) <1.815530>\",\n          \"3947104 00:14:16.296962 pselect6(8, [5], NULL, NULL, {tv_sec=2, tv_nsec=0}, NULL) = 0 (Timeout) <2.002044>\",\n          \"3947104 00:14:18.299106 pselect6(8, [5], NULL, NULL, {tv_sec=2, tv_nsec=0}, NULL\"\n        ],\n        \"strace_line_count\": 3,\n        \"subsystem\": \"runaway-process\",\n        \"thread_backtrace_summary\": \"thread backtraces show 1 thread(s) around 0x00007f82eb9e87d2 in ?? () from target:<path>\",\n        \"thread_summaries\": [\n          {\n            \"frame_count\": 7,\n            \"lwp\": 3947104,\n            \"thread_label\": \"Thread 1 (Thread 0x7f82eb914b80 (LWP 3947104) \\\"munin-node\\\"):\",\n            \"top_frame\": \"0x00007f82eb9e87d2 in ?? () from target:<path>\"\n          }\n        ],\n        \"top_hot_symbols\": [\n          \"perf_ctx_enable (100.00% in vmlinuz-6.17.10+deb14-amd64)\"\n        ],\n        \"top_syscalls\": [\n          {\n            \"count\": 3,\n            \"name\": \"pselect6\"\n          }\n        ],\n        \"wchan\": \"poll_schedule_timeout.constprop.0\"\n      },\n      \"package_name\": \"perl-base\",\n      \"severity\": \"high\"\n    },\n    \"finding_id\": 90992,\n    \"id\": 90992,\n    \"kind\": \"investigation\",\n    \"repo_root\": null,\n    \"score\": 106,\n    \"state\": \"open\",\n    \"summary\": \"perl is stuck in a likely busy poll loop: 100.00% of sampled CPU passed through perf_ctx_enable, with repeated thread backtraces show 1 thread(s) around 0x00007f82eb9e87d2 in ?? () from target:<path>.\",\n    \"title\": \"Runaway CPU investigation for perl\",\n    \"updated_at\": \"2026-09-29T16:27:42.116650255+00:00\"\n  },\n  \"source_workspace\": {\n    \"acquisition_note\": \"Fetched Debian source package via apt-get source.\",\n    \"ecosystem\": \"debian\",\n    \"homepage\": \"https://munin-monitoring.org\",\n    \"package_name\": \"munin-node\",\n    \"repo_root\": \"./source\",\n    \"source_kind\": \"debian-source\",\n    \"source_package\": \"munin\"\n  },\n  \"workspace\": {\n    \"acquisition_note\": \"Fetched Debian source package via apt-get source. Fixer created an isolated job snapshot for autonomous Codex execution.\",\n    \"ecosystem\": \"debian\",\n    \"homepage\": \"https://munin-monitoring.org\",\n    \"package_name\": \"munin-node\",\n    \"repo_root\": \"./workspace\",\n    \"source_kind\": \"debian-source\",\n    \"source_package\": \"munin\"\n  }\n}\n--- workspace ---\n./workspace\nCONTRIBUTING.md\nREADME.build-refactoring\nREADME.rst\ndists/README\ndoc/Makefile\nHACKING.pod\nREADME.HP-UX\nMakefile\nREADME.OSX\ncontrib/python-plugin/README\nt/tls/Makefile\nt/tls/README\ndebian/README.PluginConfiguration\ndebian/README.source\n","exit_code":0,"status":"completed"}}
{"type":"item.completed","item":{"id":"item_4","type":"reasoning","text":"**Checking entrypoint and docs**"}}
{"type":"item.started","item":{"id":"item_5","type":"collab_tool_call","tool":"spawn_agent","sender_thread_id":"01a0edfe-5897-7380-a5fe-22547a0fffef","receiver_thread_ids":[],"prompt":"Read-only scout: inspect munin-node entrypoint/event loop and nearby callers for plausible CPU busy-loop source given evidence. Do not edit, spawn agents, run recursive review, or perform external/destructive actions. Report relevant files/functions, whether evidence proves script bug, and local helpers.","agents_states":{},"status":"in_progress"}}
{"type":"item.completed","item":{"id":"item_5","type":"collab_tool_call","tool":"spawn_agent","sender_thread_id":"01a0edfe-5897-7380-a5fe-22547a0fffef","receiver_thread_ids":["01a0edfe-a2ce-70c2-bbf4-a3b45e51717a"],"prompt":"Read-only scout: inspect munin-node entrypoint/event loop and nearby callers for plausible CPU busy-loop source given evidence. Do not edit, spawn agents, run recursive review, or perform external/destructive actions. Report relevant files/functions, whether evidence proves script bug, and local helpers.","agents_states":{"01a0edfe-a2ce-70c2-bbf4-a3b45e51717a":{"status":"pending_init","message":null}},"status":"completed"}}
{"type":"item.started","item":{"id":"item_6","type":"collab_tool_call","tool":"spawn_agent","sender_thread_id":"01a0edfe-5897-7380-a5fe-22547a0fffef","receiver_thread_ids":[],"prompt":"Read-only scout: inspect contribution/style docs, build/test entrypoints, git branch/base, and subsystem helper conventions for munin-node. Do not edit, spawn agents, run recursive review, or do external/destructive actions. Report exact findings and commands, no speculative patch.","agents_states":{},"status":"in_progress"}}
{"type":"item.completed","item":{"id":"item_6","type":"collab_tool_call","tool":"spawn_agent","sender_thread_id":"01a0edfe-5897-7380-a5fe-22547a0fffef","receiver_thread_ids":["01a0edfe-b4fe-7a90-a1b4-73b724a64b80"],"prompt":"Read-only scout: inspect contribution/style docs, build/test entrypoints, git branch/base, and subsystem helper conventions for munin-node. Do not edit, spawn agents, run recursive review, or do external/destructive actions. Report exact findings and commands, no speculative patch.","agents_states":{"01a0edfe-b4fe-7a90-a1b4-73b724a64b80":{"status":"pending_init","message":null}},"status":"completed"}}
{"type":"error","message":"exceeded retry limit, last status: 429 Too Many Requests, request id: 77f24104-b3e8-494d-b016-0854f95c1590"}
{"type":"turn.failed","error":{"message":"exceeded retry limit, last status: 429 Too Many Requests, request id: 77f24104-b3e8-494d-b016-0854f95c1590"}}

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

Response

## Plan Pass



## Workflow Note

{"type":"item.completed","item":{"id":"item_4","type":"reasoning","text":"**Inspecting the repository and docs.**"}}
{"type":"item.completed","item":{"id":"item_5","type":"agent_message","text":"The trace shows timed waits, not confirmed spinning; I’m checking the node loop and repository guidance before deciding patchability."}}
{"type":"item.started","item":{"id":"item_6","type":"collab_tool_call","tool":"spawn_agent","sender_thread_id":"01a0edc6-189c-7a73-a4f0-e046c18d2f8c","receiver_thread_ids":[],"prompt":"Read-only scout: inspect munin-node script event-loop/polling logic and nearby callers in workspace; report exact file/line, whether code implies a busy loop, and any existing helpers. Do not edit, spawn agents, run recursive review, or perform external/destructive actions.","agents_states":{},"status":"in_progress"}}
{"type":"item.completed","item":{"id":"item_6","type":"collab_tool_call","tool":"spawn_agent","sender_thread_id":"01a0edc6-189c-7a73-a4f0-e046c18d2f8c","receiver_thread_ids":["01a0edc6-4825-7722-bd91-3405e229314b"],"prompt":"Read-only scout: inspect munin-node script event-loop/polling logic and nearby callers in workspace; report exact file/line, whether code implies a busy loop, and any existing helpers. Do not edit, spawn agents, run recursive review, or perform external/destructive actions.","agents_states":{"01a0edc6-4825-7722-bd91-3405e229314b":{"status":"pending_init","message":null}},"status":"completed"}}
{"type":"item.started","item":{"id":"item_7","type":"collab_tool_call","tool":"spawn_agent","sender_thread_id":"01a0edc6-189c-7a73-a4f0-e046c18d2f8c","receiver_thread_ids":[],"prompt":"Read-only scout: inspect workspace contribution/style documentation and build/test entrypoints, plus subsystem-local IO/process/event-loop helper conventions. Report precise paths/lines and any validation commands. Do not edit, spawn agents, run recursive review, or perform external/destructive actions.","agents_states":{},"status":"in_progress"}}
{"type":"item.completed","item":{"id":"item_7","type":"collab_tool_call","tool":"spawn_agent","sender_thread_id":"01a0edc6-189c-7a73-a4f0-e046c18d2f8c","receiver_thread_ids":["01a0edc6-536d-79d2-8685-749046431ce8"],"prompt":"Read-only scout: inspect workspace contribution/style documentation and build/test entrypoints, plus subsystem-local IO/process/event-loop helper conventions. Report precise paths/lines and any validation commands. Do not edit, spawn agents, run recursive review, or perform external/destructive actions.","agents_states":{"01a0edc6-536d-79d2-8685-749046431ce8":{"status":"pending_init","message":null}},"status":"completed"}}
{"type":"error","message":"exceeded retry limit, last status: 429 Too Many Requests, request id: 8cd371fa-9602-49f3-b148-6a443196a6e1"}
{"type":"turn.failed","error":{"message":"exceeded retry limit, last status: 429 Too Many Requests, request id: 8cd371fa-9602-49f3-b148-6a443196a6e1"}}

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

Response

## Plan Pass



## Workflow Note

{"type":"item.started","item":{"id":"item_5","type":"collab_tool_call","tool":"spawn_agent","sender_thread_id":"01a0ed86-3b76-7953-8120-9b7e9599cf1f","receiver_thread_ids":[],"prompt":"Read-only scout: inspect munin-node script/application entrypoint and nearby event-loop/select callers in workspace. Focus whether evidence actually demonstrates busy spin vs intentional timed pselect. Do not edit, do not spawn agents, do not run recursive codex review, and do not perform external/destructive actions. Report precise file/line findings and whether a source patch is warranted from evidence.","agents_states":{},"status":"in_progress"}}
{"type":"item.completed","item":{"id":"item_5","type":"collab_tool_call","tool":"spawn_agent","sender_thread_id":"01a0ed86-3b76-7953-8120-9b7e9599cf1f","receiver_thread_ids":["01a0ed86-94c1-7e93-8060-eaceb4befcdd"],"prompt":"Read-only scout: inspect munin-node script/application entrypoint and nearby event-loop/select callers in workspace. Focus whether evidence actually demonstrates busy spin vs intentional timed pselect. Do not edit, do not spawn agents, do not run recursive codex review, and do not perform external/destructive actions. Report precise file/line findings and whether a source patch is warranted from evidence.","agents_states":{"01a0ed86-94c1-7e93-8060-eaceb4befcdd":{"status":"pending_init","message":null}},"status":"completed"}}
{"type":"item.completed","item":{"id":"item_6","type":"reasoning","text":"**Checking branch and docs**"}}
{"type":"item.completed","item":{"id":"item_7","type":"agent_message","text":"The trace shows timed sleeps, not an established spin; I’m checking loop logic and project conventions next."}}
{"type":"item.started","item":{"id":"item_8","type":"collab_tool_call","tool":"spawn_agent","sender_thread_id":"01a0ed86-3b76-7953-8120-9b7e9599cf1f","receiver_thread_ids":[],"prompt":"Read-only scout: inspect contribution/style docs and source helper conventions relevant to munin-node; also determine default integration branch/repo history/metadata if available without network. Report exact docs/branch-base guidance, useful wrapper APIs, and whether relevant local helpers exist. Do not edit, spawn agents, run recursive codex review, or do external/destructive actions.","agents_states":{},"status":"in_progress"}}
{"type":"item.completed","item":{"id":"item_8","type":"collab_tool_call","tool":"spawn_agent","sender_thread_id":"01a0ed86-3b76-7953-8120-9b7e9599cf1f","receiver_thread_ids":["01a0ed86-b184-71e2-8d49-3e3e12b6f982"],"prompt":"Read-only scout: inspect contribution/style docs and source helper conventions relevant to munin-node; also determine default integration branch/repo history/metadata if available without network. Report exact docs/branch-base guidance, useful wrapper APIs, and whether relevant local helpers exist. Do not edit, spawn agents, run recursive codex review, or do external/destructive actions.","agents_states":{"01a0ed86-b184-71e2-8d49-3e3e12b6f982":{"status":"pending_init","message":null}},"status":"completed"}}
{"type":"error","message":"exceeded retry limit, last status: 429 Too Many Requests, request id: f1aba887-a531-4908-b728-2b66196db3d4"}
{"type":"turn.failed","error":{"message":"exceeded retry limit, last status: 429 Too Many Requests, request id: f1aba887-a531-4908-b728-2b66196db3d4"}}

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

Response

## Plan Pass



## Workflow Note

{"type":"item.completed","item":{"id":"item_3","type":"reasoning","text":"**Preparing evidence inspection**"}}
{"type":"item.completed","item":{"id":"item_4","type":"agent_message","text":"The signal is profiler/trace-based, so I’m checking node event-loop logic and project conventions before judging it."}}
{"type":"item.started","item":{"id":"item_5","type":"collab_tool_call","tool":"spawn_agent","sender_thread_id":"01a0ed45-a42f-73e2-ba68-b5639df0bc98","receiver_thread_ids":[],"prompt":"Read-only scout, do not spawn agents, do not edit files, do not run recursive review or public/external/destructive actions. Inspect munin-node script/application entrypoint and adjacent event-loop callers in workspace. Determine whether evidence supports an actual busy-spin or ordinary timed pselect sleep; report paths/line refs, plausible cause and confidence. Do not edit.","agents_states":{},"status":"in_progress"}}
{"type":"item.completed","item":{"id":"item_5","type":"collab_tool_call","tool":"spawn_agent","sender_thread_id":"01a0ed45-a42f-73e2-ba68-b5639df0bc98","receiver_thread_ids":["01a0ed45-e481-7263-85c3-4128c0691514"],"prompt":"Read-only scout, do not spawn agents, do not edit files, do not run recursive review or public/external/destructive actions. Inspect munin-node script/application entrypoint and adjacent event-loop callers in workspace. Determine whether evidence supports an actual busy-spin or ordinary timed pselect sleep; report paths/line refs, plausible cause and confidence. Do not edit.","agents_states":{"01a0ed45-e481-7263-85c3-4128c0691514":{"status":"pending_init","message":null}},"status":"completed"}}
{"type":"item.started","item":{"id":"item_6","type":"command_execution","command":"/bin/bash -lc \"printf '%s\\\\n' '--- guidance files ---'; sed -n '1,220p' CONTRIBUTING.md; printf '\\\\n--- HACKING ---\\\\n'; sed -n '1,220p' HACKING.pod; printf '\\\\n--- README ---\\\\n'; sed -n '1,180p' README.rst; printf '\\\\n--- root files ---\\\\n'; rg --files | sed -n '1,100p'; printf '\\\\n--- evidence summary ---\\\\n'; jq '.opportunity.evidence.details | {command_line,source_hotspot_kind,loop_classification,loop_confidence,loop_explanation,strace_excerpt,top_syscalls,wchan,top_hot_symbols,interpreter_process}' ./evidence.json\"","aggregated_output":"","exit_code":null,"status":"in_progress"}}
{"type":"item.completed","item":{"id":"item_6","type":"command_execution","command":"/bin/bash -lc \"printf '%s\\\\n' '--- guidance files ---'; sed -n '1,220p' CONTRIBUTING.md; printf '\\\\n--- HACKING ---\\\\n'; sed -n '1,220p' HACKING.pod; printf '\\\\n--- README ---\\\\n'; sed -n '1,180p' README.rst; printf '\\\\n--- root files ---\\\\n'; rg --files | sed -n '1,100p'; printf '\\\\n--- evidence summary ---\\\\n'; jq '.opportunity.evidence.details | {command_line,source_hotspot_kind,loop_classification,loop_confidence,loop_explanation,strace_excerpt,top_syscalls,wchan,top_hot_symbols,interpreter_process}' ./evidence.json\"","aggregated_output":"--- guidance files ---\n# Contributing to Munin\n\nFirst off, thanks for taking the time to contribute!\n\nRead on for [more details](http://guide.munin-monitoring.org/en/latest/others/index.html#contributing) in the Guide.\n\n## Submitting Issues\n\n* Include the version of Munin you are using and the OS.\n* Include screenshots whenever possible; they are immensely helpful.\n* Include any relevant logs; the mere act of writing a detailed bug usually gives the answer.\n\n## Pull Requests\n\n* Include screenshots in your pull request if relevant.\n* End files with a newline.\n\n## Git Commit Messages\n\n* Use the present tense (\"Add feature\" not \"Added feature\")\n* Use the imperative mood (\"Move cursor to...\" not \"Moves cursor to...\")\n* Use the standard commit formatting (look at the one already made)\n\n## Coding style\n\n* Refer to [HACKING.pod](HACKING.pod)\n\n--- HACKING ---\n# this is in pod format (try `perldoc HACKING.pod`)\n\n=pod\n\n=head1 NAME\n\nHACKING.pod - contributing to Munin\n\n=head1 SYNOPSIS\n\nThis is the guide for Munin internals contributors (developers,\ntesters, documenters.)\n\nIf you are looking for more information on how to I<use> Munin you\nprobably want L<http://guide.munin-monitoring.org/> instead.\n\nYou can find some additional contributing information at\nL<http://guide.munin-monitoring.org/en/latest/others/index.html#contributing>.\n\nThe Munin code is marked by years on the battle front. You will\ntherefore find code that deviates from the guidelines defined\nhere. However, all new code should be made to comply.\n\n\n=head1 GETTING STARTED\n\n\n=head2 GITHUB\n\nThe main development of Munin is happening on L<https://github.com>. After\nregistering an account you can report feature requests and issues\n(L<https://github.com/munin-monitoring/munin/issues/new/choose>) and create\npull requests (L<https://github.com/munin-monitoring/munin/pulls>).\n\nThere are two interesting branches:\n\n=over\n\n=item I<stable-2.0>\n\nAs the name suggests this is the stable branch for versions (currently 2.0.x).\nPlease base your bug-fix patches (for core and plugins) on this branch.\nThey will get merged by time into master.\n\n=item I<master>\n\nThis is the development branch of munin.\nPlease base your non bug-fix patches, like new features/plugins, rewrites,\ncleanup etc., on this branch.\n\n=back\n\n\n=head2 THE SANDBOX\n\nIn the B<dev_scripts> directory you will find scripts that are meant to be\nuseful for developing. Most of them are tools for creating and using\nMunin in a sandbox.\n\n=over\n\n=item B<install>\n\nTo make a clean rebuild of the sandbox:\n\n  ./dev_scripts/install clean\n  ./dev_scripts/install node\n\nTo just install the latest changes:\n\n  ./dev_scripts/install\n\n=item B<enable/disable tls>\n\nTo test TLS, you can enable a paranoid TLS configuration by running:\n\n  ./dev_scripts/enable_tls\n\nAnd disable it with:\n\n  ./dev_scripts/disable_tls\n\n=item B<start/stop munin-node>\n\n  ./dev_scripts/start_munin-node [munin-node params ...]\n\nAnd\n\n  ./dev_scripts/stop_munin-node\n\nTo do both:\n\n  ./dev_scripts/restart_munin-node [munin-node params ...]\n\n=item B<query_munin_node>\n\nUse this command to query the munin-node directly:\n\n  ./dev_scripts/query_munin_node list\n\n=item B<run>\n\nTo run Munin programs (munin-update, munin-cron, munin-node-configure,\nmunin-run etc.), use this command.\nIt ensures a correct invocation in relation to perl's taint mode.\n\n  ./dev_scripts/run CMD [CMD args ...]\n\n=item B<start munin-httpd>\n\nTo start the Munin http web front-end, run the following:\n\n  ./dev_scripts/start_munin-httpd\n\nThis will start the web server on port 4946.\n\nMake sure to run B<munin-update> at least once before visiting the site.\n\n=back\n\n\n=head1 CODING STYLE\n\n=head2 GENERAL\n\n=over 12\n\n=item C<Strictness and Warnings>\n\nPerl code should be written in tainted-mode with the settings I<use strict;>\nand I<use warnings;>.\n\nThere should be no perl warnings when running Munin.\n\n=item C<Spaces vs Tabs>\n\nIn general we prefer indentation via tabs.\n\nBut due to many space based indentations in the current codebase is it\nsufficient to follow the overall style of the file in question.\n\nWhen a sub-block is started, always use one level.\n\n=item C<Wrapping>\n\nWrapping in code is discouraged. It does not make any sense to force wrap at a\nfixed amount of columns. A much better rule is the following (1 stmt/line).\n\nComments on the other side, are to be wrapped at 78 chars, since they are a\nblock of text anyway. Any space formatting is encouraged, since it usually\nhelps. ASCII art is a must ;-)\n\n=item C<1 stmt/line>\n\nOnly put 1 statement per line. If the expression is complex, break it in\nelementary sub-expressions, with meaningful temporary variables.\n\n=item C<exception handling>\n\nCurrently there is no unified approach to handling exceptions. Use L<Carp>?\n\n  use Carp;\n  croak(\"Foo happened!\");\n\n  confess(\"Foo happened!\"); # With stack trace\n\nExceptions are caught with an eval:\n\n  eval {\n    # Exceptionally scary code\n  };\n  if ($@) {\n    # Handle exception\n  }\n\n=item C<punctuation variables>\n\nDon't use punctuation variables (see Perl Best Practices page 79.). Use the\nEnglish clear names:\n\n  use English qw(-no_match_vars);\n\nWe'll add an exception for $_, $!, $0, $@ and $$ as they should be fairly widely\nrecognised.\n\n=back\n\n\n=head2 PERLTIDY [inactive]\n\nWe use B<perltidy> to automatically format perl code. This ensures a consistent\nstyle and a tool-based enforcement. The exact configuration can be seen in the\nfile I<.perltidyrc>. Please try to use it before any contribution by running\nC<make apply-formatting>.\n\nB<TODO>: discuss perltidy style, see #1014\n\n\n=head2 PERLCRITIC\n\nB<perlcritic> is used to comply to some wide-spread recommendations. The exact\nconfiguration can be seen in the file I<.perlcriticrc>. Please try to comply\nwith those rules by running c<make lint>.\n\nB<TODO>: discuss perlcritc style, see #1051\n\n\n=head2 Commit messages\n\nPlease use the present tense (\"Add feature\" not \"Added feature\"), the\nimperative mood (\"Move cursor to...\" not \"Moves cursor to...\") and some\nstandard commit formatting (look at the one already made).\n\n\n=head1 TESTS AND COVERAGE\n\nUse test-driven development.\n\nIn node, server, or common:\n\n\n--- README ---\nThis is Munin\n=============\n\nMunin the monitoring tool surveys all your computers and remembers what it saw.\nIt presents all the information in graphs through a web interface.\nIts emphasis is on plug and play capabilities.\nAfter completing a installation a high number of monitoring plugins will be\nplaying with no more effort.\n\nAdditional plugins can be easily developed and contributed.\nSee the `Plugin Gallery <https://gallery.munin-monitoring.org/>`_ for a wide\nrange of more than a thousand community supported plugins.\n\nMunin is distributed under the `GNU GPL version 2 <https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.en.html>`_.  Munin is copyrighted\n2002-2020 by its various authors as identified in the source files.\n\n\nResources\n=========\n\n* Website: http://munin-monitoring.org/\n* Documentation: https://guide.munin-monitoring.org/\n* `IRC channel <irc://irc.oftc.net/#munin>`_: ``#munin`` on OFTC\n* Mailing List: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/munin-users\n* Plugin Gallery: https://gallery.munin-monitoring.org/\n* Live Demo (development): http://demo.munin-monitoring.org/\n\n\nNote to contributors\n--------------------\n\nBy sending us patches, you automatically license the code under the same terms\nas Munin.\n\nWe also might edit your commits metadata (the comment part) for clarifications,\nbut we'll leave the diff part intact (except for whitespace edits). So in case\nthere's a problem with the commit diff, we either commit another patch\nthereafter or plainly ask you to rework it. We might eventually squash some of\nyour commits into one.\n\nPlease always rebase your pull requests on a released version tag, one of the\nstable branches, or the default branch, ``master``.\n\nIf you request a pull against ``master``, your pull will be automatically closed\nupon merge. If you request against one of the stable release branches, your pull will be\nautomatically closed upon the next release.\n\nInformation on developing Munin with GitHub, such as how branches are used\nand the version numbering scheme, can be found in `Munin's GitHub Wiki`__.\n\n.. __ : https://github.com/munin-monitoring/munin/wiki/_pages\n\nBuilding status\n---------------\n\nstable-2.0 : |build-stable2.0|\n\nmaster : |build-master|  |coverage-master|\n\ndocs : |docs-latest|\n\n.. |build-stable2.0| image:: https://travis-ci.org/munin-monitoring/munin.svg?branch=stable-2.0\n   :target: https://travis-ci.org/munin-monitoring/munin\n\n.. |build-master| image:: https://github.com/munin-monitoring/munin/actions/workflows/build-n-test.yml/badge.svg?branch=master\n   :target: https://github.com/munin-monitoring/munin/actions/workflows/build-n-test.yml\n\n.. |coverage-master| image:: https://coveralls.io/repos/github/munin-monitoring/munin/badge.svg?branch=master\n   :target: https://coveralls.io/github/munin-monitoring/munin?branch=master\n\n\n.. |docs-latest| image:: https://readthedocs.org/projects/munin/badge/?version=latest\n   :target: https://guide.munin-monitoring.org/\n\n\n--- root files ---\nCONTRIBUTING.md\nREADME.build-refactoring\netc/munin.conf.PL\netc/munin-node.conf.PL\ndoc/preface/index.rst\ndoc/preface/conventions.rst\ndoc/preface/bugreport.rst\ndoc/preface/whatis.rst\ndoc/preface/moreinfo.rst\ndoc/conf.py\ndoc/reference/munin-node-configure.rst\ndoc/reference/munin-limits.rst\ndoc/reference/munin-update.rst\ndoc/reference/munin-get.rst\ndoc/reference/munin-html.rst\ndoc/reference/munin-cron.rst\ndoc/reference/fqn.rst\ndoc/reference/munin-run.rst\ndoc/reference/history.rst\ndoc/reference/index.rst\ndoc/reference/munin-node.conf.rst\ndoc/reference/munin-cgi-graph.rst\ndoc/reference/nomenclature.rst\ndoc/reference/munin-doc.rst\ndoc/reference/munin.conf.rst\ndoc/reference/munin-asyncd.rst\ndoc/reference/munin-async.rst\ndoc/reference/munin-graph.rst\ndoc/reference/graph-category.rst\ndoc/reference/munin.rst\ndoc/reference/munin-httpd.rst\ndoc/reference/plugin.rst\ndoc/reference/munin-check.rst\ndoc/reference/directories.rst\ndoc/reference/munin-cgi-html.rst\ndoc/reference/munin-node.rst\nChangeLog\ndoc/tutorial/monitoring-the-unreachable.rst\ndoc/tutorial/extraordinary-usage.rst\ndoc/tutorial/alert.rst\ndoc/tutorial/snmp.rst\ndoc/tutorial/index.rst\ndoc/tutorial/MuninSSHForwarding.png\ndoc/tutorial/Munin-snmp-via-dumbledore.png\ndoc/tutorial/Munin-Architecture.png\ndoc/tutorial/getting-started.rst\ndoc/tutorial/troubleshooting.rst\ndoc/tutorial/wildcard-plugins.rst\ndoc/tutorial/nagios.rst\ndoc/tutorial/advanced-features.rst\ndoc/tutorial/MuninPortForwarding.png\ndoc/index.rst\ncontrib/export-palette-to-svg\ncontrib/epoch2localtime\ncontrib/rrdcopy\ndoc/others/index.rst\nlogo-horizontal.svg\ncontrib/munin-support-info\nREADME.OSX\nMakefile.javaplugin\nlogo.eps\nauthors\nDockerfile.dev\nscript/munin-cron.PL\nscript/munin-update\nscript/munin-node\nscript/munin-run\nscript/munin-async\nscript/munin-node-configure\nscript/munin-asyncd\nscript/munin-limits\nscript/munin-check\nscript/munin-get\nscript/munin-doc\nscript/munin-httpd\ndoc/advanced/index.rst\ndoc/advanced/tls-setup.rst\ndoc/advanced/custom-rrd-sizing.rst\ndoc/advanced/network.rst\ncpanfile\ncontrib/plugin-gallery/INSTALL\ncontrib/plugin-gallery/COPYING\ncontrib/plugin-gallery/well-known-categories.incl\ndoc/master/rrdcached.rst\ndoc/master/network-protocol.rst\ndoc/master/index.rst\ndoc/master/rrdcached_effects.png\nt/munin_master_httpd_html.t\nt/munin_master_update_spoolfetch.t\nMakefile\nINSTALL.rst\nlogo.svg\nlogo.png\nt/config/plugin-conf.d/clutter_before_section.conf\nt/config/plugin-conf.d/a_good_one.conf\nt/config/plugin-conf.d/wildcards.conf\nt/config/munin.conf\nt/config/munin-node.conf\nt/munin_master_update.t\ndoc/installation/prerequisites.rst\n\n--- evidence summary ---\n{\n  \"command_line\": \"/usr/bin/perl -wT /usr/sbin/munin-node --foreground\",\n  \"source_hotspot_kind\": \"perf-profile\",\n  \"loop_classification\": \"busy-poll\",\n  \"loop_confidence\": 0.78,\n  \"loop_explanation\": \"The trace repeatedly returns to a poll-family syscall without meaningful blocking, which suggests a busy event-loop wakeup.\",\n  \"strace_excerpt\": [\n    \"3947104 00:14:14.481204 pselect6(8, [5], NULL, NULL, {tv_sec=1, tv_nsec=813665550}, NULL) = 0 (Timeout) <1.815530>\",\n    \"3947104 00:14:16.296962 pselect6(8, [5], NULL, NULL, {tv_sec=2, tv_nsec=0}, NULL) = 0 (Timeout) <2.002044>\",\n    \"3947104 00:14:18.299106 pselect6(8, [5], NULL, NULL, {tv_sec=2, tv_nsec=0}, NULL\"\n  ],\n  \"top_syscalls\": [\n    {\n      \"count\": 3,\n      \"name\": \"pselect6\"\n    }\n  ],\n  \"wchan\": \"poll_schedule_timeout.constprop.0\",\n  \"top_hot_symbols\": [\n    \"perf_ctx_enable (100.00% in vmlinuz-6.17.10+deb14-amd64)\"\n  ],\n  \"interpreter_process\": {\n    \"detection_signals\": [\n      \"native samples contain perl runtime frames\",\n      \"process command resolves to perl interpreter\"\n    ],\n    \"entrypoint_kind\": \"script\",\n    \"entrypoint_package_metadata\": {\n      \"candidate_version\": \"2.999.16-1\",\n      \"homepage\": \"https://munin-monitoring.org\",\n      \"installed_version\": \"2.0.76-7\",\n      \"package_name\": \"munin-node\",\n      \"report_url\": null,\n      \"source_package\": \"munin\"\n    },\n    \"entrypoint_package_name\": \"munin-node\",\n    \"evidence_gap\": \"Fixer saw a perl interpreter loop and a script entrypoint, but it did not prove whether the tight loop comes from script/application logic or from the runtime itself.\",\n    \"interpreter\": \"perl\",\n    \"interpreter_executable\": \"/usr/bin/perl\",\n    \"interpreter_options\": [\n      \"-wT\"\n    ],\n    \"module_options\": [],\n    \"recommended_next_steps\": [\n      \"ps -p <pid> -o pid,stat,pcpu,etime,wchan,args\",\n      \"Inspect the perl script or module entrypoint first; only patch the interpreter/runtime after proving it mishandles the workload.\",\n      \"Capture a language-level stack, trace, or minimal reproducer that ties the hot loop to the entrypoint before proposing runtime changes.\",\n      \"Keep runtime performance fixes in scope only when they also make bad script code run more predictably or cheaply without changing language semantics.\"\n    ],\n    \"runtime_package_metadata\": {\n      \"candidate_version\": \"5.42.2-1\",\n      \"homepage\": \"https://dev.perl.org/perl5/\",\n      \"installed_version\": \"5.40.1-7+b1\",\n      \"package_name\": \"perl-base\",\n      \"report_url\": null,\n      \"source_package\": \"perl\"\n    },\n    \"runtime_package_name\": \"perl-base\",\n    \"script_candidates\": [\n      \"/usr/sbin/munin-node\"\n    ],\n    \"suspected_entrypoint\": \"/usr/sbin/munin-node\"\n  }\n}\n","exit_code":0,"status":"completed"}}
{"type":"error","message":"exceeded retry limit, last status: 429 Too Many Requests, request id: ae297d4c-bccd-4036-a4fa-04c7bdd2cf58"}
{"type":"turn.failed","error":{"message":"exceeded retry limit, last status: 429 Too Many Requests, request id: ae297d4c-bccd-4036-a4fa-04c7bdd2cf58"}}

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

Response

## Plan Pass



## Workflow Note

{"type":"item.started","item":{"id":"item_5","type":"collab_tool_call","tool":"spawn_agent","sender_thread_id":"01a0ed06-ffc7-7401-88dc-f4b30cf2eeb9","receiver_thread_ids":[],"prompt":"Read-only scout: inspect munin-node script/event loop near select/pselect; determine whether evidence indicates busy polling versus expected timed wait, and identify precise source locations/callers. No edits, no external actions, don't spawn agents.","agents_states":{},"status":"in_progress"}}
{"type":"item.completed","item":{"id":"item_5","type":"collab_tool_call","tool":"spawn_agent","sender_thread_id":"01a0ed06-ffc7-7401-88dc-f4b30cf2eeb9","receiver_thread_ids":["01a0ed07-2f6c-7f51-93ba-6271aeffee01"],"prompt":"Read-only scout: inspect munin-node script/event loop near select/pselect; determine whether evidence indicates busy polling versus expected timed wait, and identify precise source locations/callers. No edits, no external actions, don't spawn agents.","agents_states":{"01a0ed07-2f6c-7f51-93ba-6271aeffee01":{"status":"pending_init","message":null}},"status":"completed"}}
{"type":"item.started","item":{"id":"item_6","type":"command_execution","command":"/bin/bash -lc \"cat CONTRIBUTING.md; printf '\\\\n--- HACKING ---\\\\n'; sed -n '1,220p' HACKING.pod; printf '\\\\n--- README ---\\\\n'; sed -n '1,160p' README.rst\"","aggregated_output":"","exit_code":null,"status":"in_progress"}}
{"type":"item.completed","item":{"id":"item_6","type":"command_execution","command":"/bin/bash -lc \"cat CONTRIBUTING.md; printf '\\\\n--- HACKING ---\\\\n'; sed -n '1,220p' HACKING.pod; printf '\\\\n--- README ---\\\\n'; sed -n '1,160p' README.rst\"","aggregated_output":"# Contributing to Munin\n\nFirst off, thanks for taking the time to contribute!\n\nRead on for [more details](http://guide.munin-monitoring.org/en/latest/others/index.html#contributing) in the Guide.\n\n## Submitting Issues\n\n* Include the version of Munin you are using and the OS.\n* Include screenshots whenever possible; they are immensely helpful.\n* Include any relevant logs; the mere act of writing a detailed bug usually gives the answer.\n\n## Pull Requests\n\n* Include screenshots in your pull request if relevant.\n* End files with a newline.\n\n## Git Commit Messages\n\n* Use the present tense (\"Add feature\" not \"Added feature\")\n* Use the imperative mood (\"Move cursor to...\" not \"Moves cursor to...\")\n* Use the standard commit formatting (look at the one already made)\n\n## Coding style\n\n* Refer to [HACKING.pod](HACKING.pod)\n\n--- HACKING ---\n# this is in pod format (try `perldoc HACKING.pod`)\n\n=pod\n\n=head1 NAME\n\nHACKING.pod - contributing to Munin\n\n=head1 SYNOPSIS\n\nThis is the guide for Munin internals contributors (developers,\ntesters, documenters.)\n\nIf you are looking for more information on how to I<use> Munin you\nprobably want L<http://guide.munin-monitoring.org/> instead.\n\nYou can find some additional contributing information at\nL<http://guide.munin-monitoring.org/en/latest/others/index.html#contributing>.\n\nThe Munin code is marked by years on the battle front. You will\ntherefore find code that deviates from the guidelines defined\nhere. However, all new code should be made to comply.\n\n\n=head1 GETTING STARTED\n\n\n=head2 GITHUB\n\nThe main development of Munin is happening on L<https://github.com>. After\nregistering an account you can report feature requests and issues\n(L<https://github.com/munin-monitoring/munin/issues/new/choose>) and create\npull requests (L<https://github.com/munin-monitoring/munin/pulls>).\n\nThere are two interesting branches:\n\n=over\n\n=item I<stable-2.0>\n\nAs the name suggests this is the stable branch for versions (currently 2.0.x).\nPlease base your bug-fix patches (for core and plugins) on this branch.\nThey will get merged by time into master.\n\n=item I<master>\n\nThis is the development branch of munin.\nPlease base your non bug-fix patches, like new features/plugins, rewrites,\ncleanup etc., on this branch.\n\n=back\n\n\n=head2 THE SANDBOX\n\nIn the B<dev_scripts> directory you will find scripts that are meant to be\nuseful for developing. Most of them are tools for creating and using\nMunin in a sandbox.\n\n=over\n\n=item B<install>\n\nTo make a clean rebuild of the sandbox:\n\n  ./dev_scripts/install clean\n  ./dev_scripts/install node\n\nTo just install the latest changes:\n\n  ./dev_scripts/install\n\n=item B<enable/disable tls>\n\nTo test TLS, you can enable a paranoid TLS configuration by running:\n\n  ./dev_scripts/enable_tls\n\nAnd disable it with:\n\n  ./dev_scripts/disable_tls\n\n=item B<start/stop munin-node>\n\n  ./dev_scripts/start_munin-node [munin-node params ...]\n\nAnd\n\n  ./dev_scripts/stop_munin-node\n\nTo do both:\n\n  ./dev_scripts/restart_munin-node [munin-node params ...]\n\n=item B<query_munin_node>\n\nUse this command to query the munin-node directly:\n\n  ./dev_scripts/query_munin_node list\n\n=item B<run>\n\nTo run Munin programs (munin-update, munin-cron, munin-node-configure,\nmunin-run etc.), use this command.\nIt ensures a correct invocation in relation to perl's taint mode.\n\n  ./dev_scripts/run CMD [CMD args ...]\n\n=item B<start munin-httpd>\n\nTo start the Munin http web front-end, run the following:\n\n  ./dev_scripts/start_munin-httpd\n\nThis will start the web server on port 4946.\n\nMake sure to run B<munin-update> at least once before visiting the site.\n\n=back\n\n\n=head1 CODING STYLE\n\n=head2 GENERAL\n\n=over 12\n\n=item C<Strictness and Warnings>\n\nPerl code should be written in tainted-mode with the settings I<use strict;>\nand I<use warnings;>.\n\nThere should be no perl warnings when running Munin.\n\n=item C<Spaces vs Tabs>\n\nIn general we prefer indentation via tabs.\n\nBut due to many space based indentations in the current codebase is it\nsufficient to follow the overall style of the file in question.\n\nWhen a sub-block is started, always use one level.\n\n=item C<Wrapping>\n\nWrapping in code is discouraged. It does not make any sense to force wrap at a\nfixed amount of columns. A much better rule is the following (1 stmt/line).\n\nComments on the other side, are to be wrapped at 78 chars, since they are a\nblock of text anyway. Any space formatting is encouraged, since it usually\nhelps. ASCII art is a must ;-)\n\n=item C<1 stmt/line>\n\nOnly put 1 statement per line. If the expression is complex, break it in\nelementary sub-expressions, with meaningful temporary variables.\n\n=item C<exception handling>\n\nCurrently there is no unified approach to handling exceptions. Use L<Carp>?\n\n  use Carp;\n  croak(\"Foo happened!\");\n\n  confess(\"Foo happened!\"); # With stack trace\n\nExceptions are caught with an eval:\n\n  eval {\n    # Exceptionally scary code\n  };\n  if ($@) {\n    # Handle exception\n  }\n\n=item C<punctuation variables>\n\nDon't use punctuation variables (see Perl Best Practices page 79.). Use the\nEnglish clear names:\n\n  use English qw(-no_match_vars);\n\nWe'll add an exception for $_, $!, $0, $@ and $$ as they should be fairly widely\nrecognised.\n\n=back\n\n\n=head2 PERLTIDY [inactive]\n\nWe use B<perltidy> to automatically format perl code. This ensures a consistent\nstyle and a tool-based enforcement. The exact configuration can be seen in the\nfile I<.perltidyrc>. Please try to use it before any contribution by running\nC<make apply-formatting>.\n\nB<TODO>: discuss perltidy style, see #1014\n\n\n=head2 PERLCRITIC\n\nB<perlcritic> is used to comply to some wide-spread recommendations. The exact\nconfiguration can be seen in the file I<.perlcriticrc>. Please try to comply\nwith those rules by running c<make lint>.\n\nB<TODO>: discuss perlcritc style, see #1051\n\n\n=head2 Commit messages\n\nPlease use the present tense (\"Add feature\" not \"Added feature\"), the\nimperative mood (\"Move cursor to...\" not \"Moves cursor to...\") and some\nstandard commit formatting (look at the one already made).\n\n\n=head1 TESTS AND COVERAGE\n\nUse test-driven development.\n\nIn node, server, or common:\n\n\n--- README ---\nThis is Munin\n=============\n\nMunin the monitoring tool surveys all your computers and remembers what it saw.\nIt presents all the information in graphs through a web interface.\nIts emphasis is on plug and play capabilities.\nAfter completing a installation a high number of monitoring plugins will be\nplaying with no more effort.\n\nAdditional plugins can be easily developed and contributed.\nSee the `Plugin Gallery <https://gallery.munin-monitoring.org/>`_ for a wide\nrange of more than a thousand community supported plugins.\n\nMunin is distributed under the `GNU GPL version 2 <https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.en.html>`_.  Munin is copyrighted\n2002-2020 by its various authors as identified in the source files.\n\n\nResources\n=========\n\n* Website: http://munin-monitoring.org/\n* Documentation: https://guide.munin-monitoring.org/\n* `IRC channel <irc://irc.oftc.net/#munin>`_: ``#munin`` on OFTC\n* Mailing List: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/munin-users\n* Plugin Gallery: https://gallery.munin-monitoring.org/\n* Live Demo (development): http://demo.munin-monitoring.org/\n\n\nNote to contributors\n--------------------\n\nBy sending us patches, you automatically license the code under the same terms\nas Munin.\n\nWe also might edit your commits metadata (the comment part) for clarifications,\nbut we'll leave the diff part intact (except for whitespace edits). So in case\nthere's a problem with the commit diff, we either commit another patch\nthereafter or plainly ask you to rework it. We might eventually squash some of\nyour commits into one.\n\nPlease always rebase your pull requests on a released version tag, one of the\nstable branches, or the default branch, ``master``.\n\nIf you request a pull against ``master``, your pull will be automatically closed\nupon merge. If you request against one of the stable release branches, your pull will be\nautomatically closed upon the next release.\n\nInformation on developing Munin with GitHub, such as how branches are used\nand the version numbering scheme, can be found in `Munin's GitHub Wiki`__.\n\n.. __ : https://github.com/munin-monitoring/munin/wiki/_pages\n\nBuilding status\n---------------\n\nstable-2.0 : |build-stable2.0|\n\nmaster : |build-master|  |coverage-master|\n\ndocs : |docs-latest|\n\n.. |build-stable2.0| image:: https://travis-ci.org/munin-monitoring/munin.svg?branch=stable-2.0\n   :target: https://travis-ci.org/munin-monitoring/munin\n\n.. |build-master| image:: https://github.com/munin-monitoring/munin/actions/workflows/build-n-test.yml/badge.svg?branch=master\n   :target: https://github.com/munin-monitoring/munin/actions/workflows/build-n-test.yml\n\n.. |coverage-master| image:: https://coveralls.io/repos/github/munin-monitoring/munin/badge.svg?branch=master\n   :target: https://coveralls.io/github/munin-monitoring/munin?branch=master\n\n\n.. |docs-latest| image:: https://readthedocs.org/projects/munin/badge/?version=latest\n   :target: https://guide.munin-monitoring.org/\n\n","exit_code":0,"status":"completed"}}
{"type":"item.started","item":{"id":"item_7","type":"command_execution","command":"/bin/bash -lc \"rg -n \\\"select|pselect|IO::Select|while\\\\s*\\\\(\\\" node/sbin/munin-node* node | head -150; printf '\\\\n--- build entrypoints ---\\\\n'; ls -la | head -60; rg -n \\\"\"'^(check|all|test):|prove|perl.*-c\" Makefile*'","aggregated_output":"","exit_code":null,"status":"in_progress"}}
{"type":"item.completed","item":{"id":"item_7","type":"command_execution","command":"/bin/bash -lc \"rg -n \\\"select|pselect|IO::Select|while\\\\s*\\\\(\\\" node/sbin/munin-node* node | head -150; printf '\\\\n--- build entrypoints ---\\\\n'; ls -la | head -60; rg -n \\\"\"'^(check|all|test):|prove|perl.*-c\" Makefile*'","aggregated_output":"rg: node/sbin/munin-node*: No such file or directory (os error 2)\nrg: node: No such file or directory (os error 2)\n\n--- build entrypoints ---\ntotal 760\ndrwxr-xr-x 19 root root   4096 Sep 29 15:57 .\ndrwxr-xr-x  3 root root   4096 Sep 29 15:57 ..\ndr-xr-xr-x  2 root root     40 Sep 29 15:57 .agents\n-rw-r--r--  1 root root   2012 Jan 12  2022 .codespell.exclude\n-rw-r--r--  1 root root     25 Jan 12  2022 .codespell.ignore-words\ndr-xr-xr-x  2 root root     40 Sep 29 15:57 .codex\n-rw-r--r--  1 root root     33 Jan 12  2022 .dockerignore\n-rw-r--r--  1 root root     85 Jan 12  2022 .flake8\ndrwxr-xr-x  7 root root   4096 Sep 29 15:57 .git\n-rw-r--r--  1 root root    128 Jan 12  2022 .gitattributes\ndrwxr-xr-x  4 root root   4096 Jan 12  2022 .github\n-rw-r--r--  1 root root    458 Jan 12  2022 .gitignore\ndrwxr-xr-x  6 root root   4096 May 21 01:37 .pc\n-rw-r--r--  1 root root   1102 Jan 12  2022 .perlcriticrc\n-rw-r--r--  1 root root   1252 Jan 12  2022 .perltidyrc\n-rw-r--r--  1 root root   1576 Jan 12  2022 Announce-2.0\n-rwxr-xr-x  1 root root   9957 Jan 12  2022 Build.PL\n-rw-r--r--  1 root root    824 Jan 12  2022 CONTRIBUTING.md\n-rw-r--r--  1 root root   1713 Jan 12  2022 COPYING\n-rw-r--r--  1 root root 365418 Jan 12  2022 ChangeLog\n-rw-r--r--  1 root root   1606 Jan 12  2022 Checklist\n-rw-r--r--  1 root root    438 Jan 12  2022 Dockerfile\n-rw-r--r--  1 root root   2398 Jan 12  2022 Dockerfile.base\n-rw-r--r--  1 root root     43 Jan 12  2022 Dockerfile.dev\n-rw-r--r--  1 root root   6471 Jan 12  2022 HACKING.pod\n-rw-r--r--  1 root root    771 Jan 12  2022 INSTALL.rst\n-rw-r--r--  1 root root   1260 Jan 12  2022 MANIFEST.SKIP\n-rw-r--r--  1 root root   8156 Jan 12  2022 Makefile\n-rw-r--r--  1 root root   6439 Jan 12  2022 Makefile.config\n-rw-r--r--  1 root root   1394 Jan 12  2022 Makefile.javaplugin\n-rw-r--r--  1 root root    535 Jan 12  2022 README.HP-UX\n-rw-r--r--  1 root root   1012 Jan 12  2022 README.OSX\n-rw-r--r--  1 root root   1792 Jan 12  2022 README.build-refactoring\n-rw-r--r--  1 root root   2954 Jan 12  2022 README.rst\n-rw-r--r--  1 root root      9 Jan 12  2022 RELEASE\n-rw-r--r--  1 root root   2087 Jan 12  2022 authors\ndrwxr-xr-x  5 root root   4096 Jan 12  2022 contrib\n-rw-r--r--  1 root root   1743 Jan 12  2022 cpanfile\ndrwxr-xr-x  6 root root   4096 Feb 10  2022 debian\ndrwxr-xr-x  2 root root   4096 Jan 12  2022 dev_scripts\ndrwxr-xr-x  2 root root   4096 Jan 12  2022 dists\ndrwxr-xr-x 17 root root   4096 Jan 12  2022 doc\ndrwxr-xr-x  2 root root   4096 Jan 12  2022 etc\n-rwxr-xr-x  1 root root   2803 Jan 12  2022 getversion\ndrwxr-xr-x  3 root root   4096 Jan 12  2022 lib\n-rw-r--r--  1 root root  12025 Jan 12  2022 logo-horizontal-neg.svg\n-rw-r--r--  1 root root  11982 Jan 12  2022 logo-horizontal.svg\n-rw-r--r--  1 root root 129413 Jan 12  2022 logo.eps\n-rw-r--r--  1 root root  26569 Jan 12  2022 logo.png\n-rw-r--r--  1 root root   9871 Jan 12  2022 logo.svg\ndrwxr-xr-x 15 root root   4096 Jan 12  2022 plugins\ndrwxr-xr-x  2 root root   4096 May 21 01:37 script\ndrwxr-xr-x  5 root root   4096 Jan 12  2022 t\ndrwxr-xr-x  4 root root   4096 Jan 12  2022 web\ndrwxr-xr-x  2 root root   4096 Jan 12  2022 xt\nMakefile:65:\tperltidy script/munin-async script/munin-asyncd script/munin-cron.PL script/munin-doc script/munin-httpd script/munin-limits script/munin-node script/munin-node-configure script/munin-run script/munin-update\nMakefile:158:test: $(BUILD_SCRIPT)\n","exit_code":0,"status":"completed"}}
{"type":"error","message":"exceeded retry limit, last status: 429 Too Many Requests, request id: f8e14e5c-b208-42f0-851d-4bc473590126"}
{"type":"turn.failed","error":{"message":"exceeded retry limit, last status: 429 Too Many Requests, request id: f8e14e5c-b208-42f0-851d-4bc473590126"}}

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

Response

## Plan Pass



## Workflow Note

{"type":"item.completed","item":{"id":"item_5","type":"agent_message","text":"The evidence is kernel/poll-heavy, so I’m checking Munin’s node event loop before inferring any patch."}}
{"type":"item.started","item":{"id":"item_6","type":"collab_tool_call","tool":"spawn_agent","sender_thread_id":"01a0ecc4-1dfe-7232-bff1-5669950786ab","receiver_thread_ids":[],"prompt":"Read-only leaf task: inspect munin-node script/application event loop and nearby poll/select callers in workspace. Assess whether evidence supports busy loop vs normal timed wait. Do not edit, spawn agents, run recursive review, or perform external/destructive actions. Report paths/line refs and specific assessment.","agents_states":{},"status":"in_progress"}}
{"type":"item.completed","item":{"id":"item_6","type":"collab_tool_call","tool":"spawn_agent","sender_thread_id":"01a0ecc4-1dfe-7232-bff1-5669950786ab","receiver_thread_ids":["01a0ecc4-63ee-7883-8807-b3722642f383"],"prompt":"Read-only leaf task: inspect munin-node script/application event loop and nearby poll/select callers in workspace. Assess whether evidence supports busy loop vs normal timed wait. Do not edit, spawn agents, run recursive review, or perform external/destructive actions. Report paths/line refs and specific assessment.","agents_states":{"01a0ecc4-63ee-7883-8807-b3722642f383":{"status":"pending_init","message":null}},"status":"completed"}}
{"type":"item.completed","item":{"id":"item_7","type":"reasoning","text":"**Searching repo history**"}}
{"type":"item.started","item":{"id":"item_8","type":"collab_tool_call","tool":"spawn_agent","sender_thread_id":"01a0ecc4-1dfe-7232-bff1-5669950786ab","receiver_thread_ids":[],"prompt":"Read-only leaf: inspect contribution/style docs, root build/test entrypoints, and Munin local helper conventions relevant to daemon IO/event-loop. Identify default upstream integration branch if repo metadata/docs indicate. Do not edit, spawn agents, run recursive review, or external/destructive actions. Report concrete paths/lines and commands.","agents_states":{},"status":"in_progress"}}
{"type":"item.completed","item":{"id":"item_8","type":"collab_tool_call","tool":"spawn_agent","sender_thread_id":"01a0ecc4-1dfe-7232-bff1-5669950786ab","receiver_thread_ids":["01a0ecc4-7e49-7281-a53b-f3e1d9c7adc8"],"prompt":"Read-only leaf: inspect contribution/style docs, root build/test entrypoints, and Munin local helper conventions relevant to daemon IO/event-loop. Identify default upstream integration branch if repo metadata/docs indicate. Do not edit, spawn agents, run recursive review, or external/destructive actions. Report concrete paths/lines and commands.","agents_states":{"01a0ecc4-7e49-7281-a53b-f3e1d9c7adc8":{"status":"pending_init","message":null}},"status":"completed"}}
{"type":"error","message":"exceeded retry limit, last status: 429 Too Many Requests, request id: a3b49401-db51-497a-876d-91841293518a"}
{"type":"turn.failed","error":{"message":"exceeded retry limit, last status: 429 Too Many Requests, request id: a3b49401-db51-497a-876d-91841293518a"}}

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

Response

## Plan Pass



## Workflow Note

{"type":"item.completed","item":{"id":"item_4","type":"reasoning","text":"**Inspecting source docs**"}}
{"type":"item.started","item":{"id":"item_5","type":"collab_tool_call","tool":"spawn_agent","sender_thread_id":"01a0ec85-49a6-7b90-a63d-cee3b697df39","receiver_thread_ids":[],"prompt":"Read-only scout: inspect munin-node script entrypoint and event loop related callers in workspace. Identify plausible source behavior behind reported pselect waits or explain evidence gap. Do not edit, spawn agents, run recursive review, or perform external/destructive actions. Report paths/lines and confidence.","agents_states":{},"status":"in_progress"}}
{"type":"item.completed","item":{"id":"item_5","type":"collab_tool_call","tool":"spawn_agent","sender_thread_id":"01a0ec85-49a6-7b90-a63d-cee3b697df39","receiver_thread_ids":["01a0ec85-89d8-7e70-971a-f2e168b98cba"],"prompt":"Read-only scout: inspect munin-node script entrypoint and event loop related callers in workspace. Identify plausible source behavior behind reported pselect waits or explain evidence gap. Do not edit, spawn agents, run recursive review, or perform external/destructive actions. Report paths/lines and confidence.","agents_states":{"01a0ec85-89d8-7e70-971a-f2e168b98cba":{"status":"pending_init","message":null}},"status":"completed"}}
{"type":"item.completed","item":{"id":"item_6","type":"reasoning","text":"**Considering docs/helper delegation**"}}
{"type":"item.started","item":{"id":"item_7","type":"collab_tool_call","tool":"spawn_agent","sender_thread_id":"01a0ec85-49a6-7b90-a63d-cee3b697df39","receiver_thread_ids":[],"prompt":"Read-only scout: inspect contribution/style docs, Makefile project-level validation entrypoints, repository git branch/remotes/history for upstream base convention, and helper APIs relevant to munin-node. Do not edit, spawn agents, run recursive review, or perform external/destructive actions. Report exact commands/docs/helpers and relevant paths.","agents_states":{},"status":"in_progress"}}
{"type":"item.completed","item":{"id":"item_7","type":"collab_tool_call","tool":"spawn_agent","sender_thread_id":"01a0ec85-49a6-7b90-a63d-cee3b697df39","receiver_thread_ids":["01a0ec85-a27c-7931-bad3-149af0b03c8a"],"prompt":"Read-only scout: inspect contribution/style docs, Makefile project-level validation entrypoints, repository git branch/remotes/history for upstream base convention, and helper APIs relevant to munin-node. Do not edit, spawn agents, run recursive review, or perform external/destructive actions. Report exact commands/docs/helpers and relevant paths.","agents_states":{"01a0ec85-a27c-7931-bad3-149af0b03c8a":{"status":"pending_init","message":null}},"status":"completed"}}
{"type":"error","message":"exceeded retry limit, last status: 429 Too Many Requests, request id: bbc6796b-bf06-4166-b92a-f40e4ff1ce9d"}
{"type":"turn.failed","error":{"message":"exceeded retry limit, last status: 429 Too Many Requests, request id: bbc6796b-bf06-4166-b92a-f40e4ff1ce9d"}}

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

Response

## Plan Pass



## Workflow Note

{"type":"item.completed","item":{"id":"item_3","type":"command_execution","command":"/bin/bash -lc \"cat ./evidence.json && printf '\\\\n--- workspace files ---\\\\n' && rg --files -g 'AGENTS.md' -g 'CONTRIBUTING*' -g 'HACKING*' -g 'README-hacking*' -g 'README*' -g 'Makefile' -g 'configure*' -g 'meson.build' -g 'CMakeLists.txt' -g 'docs/**' -g 'dev-docs/**' | head -200 && printf '\\\\n--- status ---\\\\n' && git status --short --branch\"","aggregated_output":"{\n  \"opportunity\": {\n    \"created_at\": \"2026-05-20T21:37:15.641855389+00:00\",\n    \"ecosystem\": null,\n    \"evidence\": {\n      \"artifact_name\": \"perl\",\n      \"artifact_path\": \"/usr/bin/perl\",\n      \"details\": {\n        \"backtrace_capture_error\": null,\n        \"backtrace_capture_status\": \"captured\",\n        \"command_line\": \"/usr/bin/perl -wT /usr/sbin/munin-node --foreground\",\n        \"common_frame_clusters\": [\n          {\n            \"frames\": [\n              \"0x00007f82eb9e87d2 in ?? () from target:<path>\",\n              \"0x00007f82eb9e87ed in ?? () from target:<path>\",\n              \"0x00007f82eba686cf in select () from target:<path>\"\n            ],\n            \"signature\": \"0x00007f82eb9e87d2 in ?? () from target:<path> | 0x00007f82eb9e87ed in ?? () from target:<path> | 0x00007f82eba686cf in select () from target:<path>\",\n            \"thread_count\": 1\n          }\n        ],\n        \"distro_id\": \"debian\",\n        \"dominant_sequence\": [\n          \"pselect6\",\n          \"pselect6\",\n          \"pselect6\"\n        ],\n        \"executable\": \"/usr/bin/perl\",\n        \"hot_path_dso\": \"[kernel.kallsyms]\",\n        \"hot_path_percent\": 100.0,\n        \"hot_path_symbol\": \"perf_ctx_enable\",\n        \"implicated_package_names\": [\n          \"linux-image-6.17.10+deb14-amd64\"\n        ],\n        \"installed_package_version\": \"5.40.1-7+b1\",\n        \"interpreter_process\": {\n          \"detection_signals\": [\n            \"native samples contain perl runtime frames\",\n            \"process command resolves to perl interpreter\"\n          ],\n          \"entrypoint_kind\": \"script\",\n          \"entrypoint_package_metadata\": {\n            \"candidate_version\": \"2.999.16-1\",\n            \"homepage\": \"https://munin-monitoring.org\",\n            \"installed_version\": \"2.0.76-7\",\n            \"package_name\": \"munin-node\",\n            \"report_url\": null,\n            \"source_package\": \"munin\"\n          },\n          \"entrypoint_package_name\": \"munin-node\",\n          \"evidence_gap\": \"Fixer saw a perl interpreter loop and a script entrypoint, but it did not prove whether the tight loop comes from script/application logic or from the runtime itself.\",\n          \"interpreter\": \"perl\",\n          \"interpreter_executable\": \"/usr/bin/perl\",\n          \"interpreter_options\": [\n            \"-wT\"\n          ],\n          \"module_options\": [],\n          \"recommended_next_steps\": [\n            \"ps -p <pid> -o pid,stat,pcpu,etime,wchan,args\",\n            \"Inspect the perl script or module entrypoint first; only patch the interpreter/runtime after proving it mishandles the workload.\",\n            \"Capture a language-level stack, trace, or minimal reproducer that ties the hot loop to the entrypoint before proposing runtime changes.\",\n            \"Keep runtime performance fixes in scope only when they also make bad script code run more predictably or cheaply without changing language semantics.\"\n          ],\n          \"runtime_package_metadata\": {\n            \"candidate_version\": \"5.42.2-1\",\n            \"homepage\": \"https://dev.perl.org/perl5/\",\n            \"installed_version\": \"5.40.1-7+b1\",\n            \"package_name\": \"perl-base\",\n            \"report_url\": null,\n            \"source_package\": \"perl\"\n          },\n          \"runtime_package_name\": \"perl-base\",\n          \"script_candidates\": [\n            \"/usr/sbin/munin-node\"\n          ],\n          \"suspected_entrypoint\": \"/usr/sbin/munin-node\"\n        },\n        \"kernel_release\": \"6.17.10+deb14-amd64\",\n        \"lock_contention_signals\": [\n          \"gdb-stderr: gdb: warning: Couldn't determine a path for the index cache directory.\"\n        ],\n        \"loop_classification\": \"busy-poll\",\n        \"loop_confidence\": 0.78,\n        \"loop_explanation\": \"The trace repeatedly returns to a poll-family syscall without meaningful blocking, which suggests a busy event-loop wakeup.\",\n        \"maps_excerpt\": \"55b55508e000-55b5550d2000 r--p 00000000 fe:00 69863045                   /usr/bin/perl\\n55b5550d2000-55b555286000 r-xp 00044000 fe:00 69863045                   /usr/bin/perl\\n55b555286000-55b55543e000 r--p 001f8000 fe:00 69863045                   /usr/bin/perl\\n55b55543e000-55b55544e000 r--p 003b0000 fe:00 69863045                   /usr/bin/perl\\n55b55544e000-55b555451000 rw-p 003c0000 fe:00 69863045                   /usr/bin/perl\\n55b555451000-55b555457000 rw-p 00000000 00:00 0 \\n55b595002000-55b5959a9000 rw-p 00000000 00:00 0                          [heap]\\n7f82eb023000-7f82eb026000 r--p 00000000 fe:00 69865541                   /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libresolv.so.2\\n7f82eb026000-7f82eb02f000 r-xp 00003000 fe:00 69865541                   /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libresolv.so.2\\n7f82eb02f000-7f82eb031000 r--p 0000c000 fe:00 69865541                   /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libresolv.so.2\\n7f82eb031000-7f82eb032000 r--p 0000e000 fe:00 69865541                   /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libresolv.so.2\\n7f82eb032000-7f82eb033000 rw-p 0000f000 fe:00 69865541                   /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libresolv.so.2\\n7f82eb033000-7f82eb035000 rw-p 00000000 00:00 0 \\n7f82eb035000-7f82eb037000 r--p 00000000 fe:00 69862981                   /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libkeyutils.so.1.10\\n7f82eb037000-7f82eb039000 r-xp 00002000 fe:00 69862981                   /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libkeyutils.so.1.10\\n7f82eb039000-7f82eb03a000 r--p 00004000 fe:00 69862981                   /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libkeyutils.so.1.10\\n7f82eb03a000-7f82eb03b000 r--p 00004000 fe:00 69862981                   /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libkeyutils.so.1.10\\n7f82eb03b000-7f82eb03c000 rw-p 00005000 fe:00 69862981                   /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libkeyutils.so.1.10\\n7f82eb03c000-7f82eb03f000 r--p 00000000 fe:00 69862486                   /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libkrb5support.so.0.1\\n7f82eb03f000-7f82eb045000 r-xp 00003000 fe:00 69862486                   /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libkrb5support.so.0.1\\n7f82eb045000-7f82eb047000 r--p 00009000 fe:00 69862486                   /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libkrb5support.so.0.1\\n7f82eb047000-7f82eb048000 r--p 0000b000 fe:00 69862486                   /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libkrb5support.so.0.1\\n7f82eb048000-7f82eb049000 rw-p 0000c000 fe:00 69862486                   /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libkrb5support.so.0.1\\n7f82eb049000-7f82eb04d000 r--p 00000000 fe:00 69863259                   /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libk5crypto.so.3.1\\n7f82eb04d000-7f82eb067000 r-xp 00004000 fe:00 69863259                   /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libk5crypto.so.3.1\\n7f82eb067000-7f82eb074000 r--p 0001e000 fe:00 69863259                   /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libk5crypto.so.3.1\\n7f82eb074000-7f82eb075000 r--p 0002b000 fe:00 69863259                   /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libk5crypto.so.3.1\\n7f82eb075000-7f82eb076000 rw-p 0002c000 fe:00 69863259                   /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libk5crypto.so.3.1\\n7f82eb076000-7f82eb099000 r--p 00000000 fe:00 69862533                   /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libkrb5.so.3.3\\n7f82eb099000-7f82eb0f9000 r-xp 00023000 fe:00 69862533                   /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libkrb5.so.3.3\\n7f82eb0f9000-7f82eb140000 r--p 00083000 fe:00 69862533                   /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libkrb5.so.3.3\\n7f82eb140000-7f82eb14d000 r--p 000c9000 fe:00 69862533                   /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libkrb5.so.3.3\\n7f82eb14d000-7f82eb150000 rw-p 000d6000 fe:00 69862533                   /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libkrb5.so.3.3\\n7f82eb150000-7f82eb15c000 r--p 00000000 fe:00 69862168                   /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libgssapi_krb5.so.2.2\\n7f82eb15c000-7f82eb194000 r-xp 0000c000 fe:00 69862168                   /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libgssapi_krb5.so.2.2\\n7f82eb194000-7f82eb1a2000 r--p 00044000 fe:00 69862168                   /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libgssapi_krb5.so.2.2\\n7f82eb1a2000-7f82eb1a4000 r--p 00051000 fe:00 69862168                   /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libgssapi_krb5.so.2.2\\n7f82eb1a4000-7f82eb1a6000 rw-p 00053000 fe:00 69862168                   /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libgssapi_krb5.so.2.2\\n7f82eb1a6000-7f82eb1ae000 r--p 00000000 fe:00 69861494                   /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libtirpc.so.3.0.0\\n7f82eb1ae000-7f82eb1ca000 r-xp 00008000 fe:00 69861494                   /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libtirpc.so.3.0.0\\n7f82eb1ca000-7f82eb1d3000 r--p 00024000 fe:00 69861494                   /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libtirpc.so.3.0.0\\n7f82eb1d3000-7f82eb1d5000 r--p 0002c000 fe:00 69861494                   /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libtirpc.so.3.0.0\\n7f82eb1d5000-7f82eb1d6000 rw-p 0002e000 fe:00 69861494                   /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libtirpc.so.3.0.0\\n7f82eb1d6000-7f82eb1db000 r--p 00000000 fe:00 69861538                   /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libnsl.so.2.0.1\\n7f82eb1db000-7f82eb1e9000 r-xp 00005000 fe:00 69861538                   /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libnsl.so.2.0.1\\n7f82eb1e9000-7f82eb1ed000 r--p 00013000 fe:00 69861538                   /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libnsl.so.2.0.1\\n7f82eb1ed000-7f82eb1ee000 r--p 00016000 fe:00 69861538                   /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libnsl.so.2.0.1\\n7f82eb1ee000-7f82eb1ef000 rw-p 00017000 fe:00 69861538                   /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libnsl.so.2.0.1\",\n        \"package_metadata\": {\n          \"candidate_version\": \"5.42.2-1\",\n          \"homepage\": \"https://dev.perl.org/perl5/\",\n          \"installed_version\": \"5.40.1-7+b1\",\n          \"package_name\": \"perl-base\",\n          \"report_url\": null,\n          \"source_package\": \"perl\"\n        },\n        \"perl_process\": {\n          \"detection_signals\": [\n            \"command line starts with Perl\",\n            \"executable looks like Perl\",\n            \"native backtrace contains Perl interpreter frames\",\n            \"poll-family syscall loop under Perl\"\n          ],\n          \"evidence_gap\": \"Fixer saw a Perl interpreter loop and script-level launch hints, but it did not retain a Perl-level stack tying the poll loop to a script line or module call.\",\n          \"follow_up_commands\": [\n            \"ps -p <pid> -o pid,stat,pcpu,etime,wchan,args\",\n            \"strace -ttT -f -e trace=pselect6,select,poll,ppoll,epoll_wait,nanosleep,clock_nanosleep -p <pid>\",\n            \"gdb --batch -p <pid> -ex 'thread apply all bt full' -ex detach -ex quit\",\n            \"Reproduce the visible Perl script with minimal input and capture its Perl-level stack or trace before proposing a source patch.\"\n          ],\n          \"include_paths\": [],\n          \"interpreter_options\": [\n            \"-wT\"\n          ],\n          \"module_options\": [],\n          \"script_candidates\": [\n            \"/usr/sbin/munin-node\"\n          ],\n          \"suspected_script\": \"/usr/sbin/munin-node\"\n        },\n        \"process_state\": \"S (sleeping)\",\n        \"profile_duration_seconds\": 3,\n        \"profile_target\": {\n          \"max_cpu_percent\": 0.9,\n          \"name\": \"perl\",\n          \"package_name\": \"perl-base\",\n          \"path\": \"/usr/bin/perl\",\n          \"process_count\": 1,\n          \"total_cpu_percent\": 0.9\n        },\n        \"raw_artifacts\": {\n          \"cmdline\": \"/var/lib/fixer/investigations/2026-05-20T21-14-14.478825921+00-00-perl-b1cf44a42291/cmdline.txt\",\n          \"cwd\": \"/var/lib/fixer/investigations/2026-05-20T21-14-14.478825921+00-00-perl-b1cf44a42291/cwd.txt\",\n          \"exe\": \"/var/lib/fixer/investigations/2026-05-20T21-14-14.478825921+00-00-perl-b1cf44a42291/exe.txt\",\n          \"fd_targets\": \"/var/lib/fixer/investigations/2026-05-20T21-14-14.478825921+00-00-perl-b1cf44a42291/fd-targets.txt\",\n          \"gdb_backtrace\": \"/var/lib/fixer/investigations/2026-05-20T21-14-14.478825921+00-00-perl-b1cf44a42291/gdb-bt.txt\",\n          \"gdb_backtrace_full\": \"/var/lib/fixer/investigations/2026-05-20T21-14-14.478825921+00-00-perl-b1cf44a42291/gdb-bt-full.txt\",\n          \"io\": \"/var/lib/fixer/investigations/2026-05-20T21-14-14.478825921+00-00-perl-b1cf44a42291/io.txt\",\n          \"proc_maps\": \"/var/lib/fixer/investigations/2026-05-20T21-14-14.478825921+00-00-perl-b1cf44a42291/maps.txt\",\n          \"root\": \"/var/lib/fixer/investigations/2026-05-20T21-14-14.478825921+00-00-perl-b1cf44a42291/root.txt\",\n          \"sched\": \"/var/lib/fixer/investigations/2026-05-20T21-14-14.478825921+00-00-perl-b1cf44a42291/sched.txt\",\n          \"stack\": \"/var/lib/fixer/investigations/2026-05-20T21-14-14.478825921+00-00-perl-b1cf44a42291/stack.txt\",\n          \"status\": \"/var/lib/fixer/investigations/2026-05-20T21-14-14.478825921+00-00-perl-b1cf44a42291/status.txt\",\n          \"strace\": \"/var/lib/fixer/investigations/2026-05-20T21-14-14.478825921+00-00-perl-b1cf44a42291/strace.log\",\n          \"strace_stderr\": \"/var/lib/fixer/investigations/2026-05-20T21-14-14.478825921+00-00-perl-b1cf44a42291/strace.stderr.txt\",\n          \"wchan\": \"/var/lib/fixer/investigations/2026-05-20T21-14-14.478825921+00-00-perl-b1cf44a42291/wchan.txt\"\n        },\n        \"raw_backtrace_excerpt\": \"Thread 1 (Thread 0x7f82eb914b80 (LWP 3947104) \\\"munin-node\\\"):\\n#0  0x00007f82eb9e87d2 in ?? () from target:<path>\\n#1  0x00007f82eb9e87ed in ?? () from target:<path>\\n#2  0x00007f82eba686cf in select () from target:<path>\\n#3  0x000055b5551b8ee4 in ?? ()\\n#4  0x000055b55521a496 in Perl_runops_standard ()\\n#5  0x000055b555100b85 in perl_run ()\\n#6  0x000055b5550d35ae in main ()\",\n        \"remote_finding_id\": 90992,\n        \"remote_opportunity_id\": 90992,\n        \"representative_backtraces\": [\n          {\n            \"frames\": [\n              \"0x00007f82eb9e87d2 in ?? () from target:<path>\",\n              \"0x00007f82eb9e87ed in ?? () from target:<path>\",\n              \"0x00007f82eba686cf in select () from target:<path>\",\n              \"0x000055b5551b8ee4 in ?? ()\",\n              \"0x000055b55521a496 in Perl_runops_standard ()\",\n              \"0x000055b555100b85 in perl_run ()\",\n              \"0x000055b5550d35ae in main ()\"\n            ],\n            \"label\": \"Thread 1 (Thread 0x7f82eb914b80 (LWP 3947104) \\\"munin-node\\\"):\",\n            \"lwp\": 3947104,\n            \"thread_count\": 1\n          }\n        ],\n        \"richer_evidence_included\": true,\n        \"sampled_pid\": 3947104,\n        \"sampled_pid_count\": 1,\n        \"sampled_pids\": [\n          3947104\n        ],\n        \"sched_excerpt\": \"munin-node (3947104, #threads: 1)\\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\\nse.exec_start                                :   13251380432.169783\\nse.vruntime                                  :            92.977411\\nse.sum_exec_runtime                          :           186.869688\\nse.nr_migrations                             :                   28\\nnr_switches                                  :                  240\\nnr_voluntary_switches                        :                  236\\nnr_involuntary_switches                      :                    4\\nse.load.weight                               :              1048576\\nse.avg.load_sum                              :                   57\\nse.avg.runnable_sum                          :                58368\\nse.avg.util_sum                              :                58368\\nse.avg.load_avg                              :                    0\\nse.avg.runnable_avg                          :                    0\\nse.avg.util_avg                              :                    0\\nse.avg.last_update_time                      :    13250592748856320\\nse.avg.util_est                              :                    8\\nuclamp.min                                   :                    0\\nuclamp.max                                   :                 1024\\neffective uclamp.min                         :                    0\\neffective uclamp.max                         :                 1024\\npolicy                                       :                    0\\nprio                                         :                  120\",\n        \"shared_opportunity\": true,\n        \"source_hotspot_kind\": \"perf-profile\",\n        \"source_profile_fingerprint\": \"b1cf44a422916ffd405d0fcea8e62f9c49cb337349788b8fe8c6fc179c1b5234\",\n        \"stack_excerpt\": \"[<0>] poll_schedule_timeout.constprop.0+0x37/0x90\\n[<0>] do_select+0x67f/0x950\\n[<0>] core_sys_select+0x277/0x490\\n[<0>] do_pselect.constprop.0+0xe9/0x180\\n[<0>] __x64_sys_pselect6+0x59/0x70\\n[<0>] do_syscall_64+0x82/0x320\\n[<0>] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x76/0x7e\",\n        \"status_excerpt\": \"Name:\\tmunin-node\\nUmask:\\t0022\\nState:\\tS (sleeping)\\nTgid:\\t3947104\\nNgid:\\t0\\nPid:\\t3947104\\nPPid:\\t1\\nTracerPid:\\t0\\nUid:\\t0\\t0\\t0\\t0\\nGid:\\t0\\t0\\t0\\t0\\nFDSize:\\t1024\\nGroups:\\t0 0 \\nNStgid:\\t3947104\\nNSpid:\\t3947104\\nNSpgid:\\t3947104\\nNSsid:\\t3947104\\nKthread:\\t0\\nVmPeak:\\t   26588 kB\\nVmSize:\\t   26588 kB\\nVmLck:\\t       0 kB\\nVmPin:\\t       0 kB\\nVmHWM:\\t   17088 kB\\nVmRSS:\\t   17088 kB\\nRssAnon:\\t   10224 kB\",\n        \"strace_duration_seconds\": 5,\n        \"strace_excerpt\": [\n          \"3947104 00:14:14.481204 pselect6(8, [5], NULL, NULL, {tv_sec=1, tv_nsec=813665550}, NULL) = 0 (Timeout) <1.815530>\",\n          \"3947104 00:14:16.296962 pselect6(8, [5], NULL, NULL, {tv_sec=2, tv_nsec=0}, NULL) = 0 (Timeout) <2.002044>\",\n          \"3947104 00:14:18.299106 pselect6(8, [5], NULL, NULL, {tv_sec=2, tv_nsec=0}, NULL\"\n        ],\n        \"strace_line_count\": 3,\n        \"subsystem\": \"runaway-process\",\n        \"thread_backtrace_summary\": \"thread backtraces show 1 thread(s) around 0x00007f82eb9e87d2 in ?? () from target:<path>\",\n        \"thread_summaries\": [\n          {\n            \"frame_count\": 7,\n            \"lwp\": 3947104,\n            \"thread_label\": \"Thread 1 (Thread 0x7f82eb914b80 (LWP 3947104) \\\"munin-node\\\"):\",\n            \"top_frame\": \"0x00007f82eb9e87d2 in ?? () from target:<path>\"\n          }\n        ],\n        \"top_hot_symbols\": [\n          \"perf_ctx_enable (100.00% in vmlinuz-6.17.10+deb14-amd64)\"\n        ],\n        \"top_syscalls\": [\n          {\n            \"count\": 3,\n            \"name\": \"pselect6\"\n          }\n        ],\n        \"wchan\": \"poll_schedule_timeout.constprop.0\"\n      },\n      \"package_name\": \"perl-base\",\n      \"severity\": \"high\"\n    },\n    \"finding_id\": 90992,\n    \"id\": 90992,\n    \"kind\": \"investigation\",\n    \"repo_root\": null,\n    \"score\": 106,\n    \"state\": \"open\",\n    \"summary\": \"perl is stuck in a likely busy poll loop: 100.00% of sampled CPU passed through perf_ctx_enable, with repeated thread backtraces show 1 thread(s) around 0x00007f82eb9e87d2 in ?? () from target:<path>.\",\n    \"title\": \"Runaway CPU investigation for perl\",\n    \"updated_at\": \"2026-09-29T08:25:46.730001873+00:00\"\n  },\n  \"source_workspace\": {\n    \"acquisition_note\": \"Fetched Debian source package via apt-get source.\",\n    \"ecosystem\": \"debian\",\n    \"homepage\": \"https://munin-monitoring.org\",\n    \"package_name\": \"munin-node\",\n    \"repo_root\": \"./source\",\n    \"source_kind\": \"debian-source\",\n    \"source_package\": \"munin\"\n  },\n  \"workspace\": {\n    \"acquisition_note\": \"Fetched Debian source package via apt-get source. Fixer created an isolated job snapshot for autonomous Codex execution.\",\n    \"ecosystem\": \"debian\",\n    \"homepage\": \"https://munin-monitoring.org\",\n    \"package_name\": \"munin-node\",\n    \"repo_root\": \"./workspace\",\n    \"source_kind\": \"debian-source\",\n    \"source_package\": \"munin\"\n  }\n}\n--- workspace files ---\nCONTRIBUTING.md\nREADME.build-refactoring\ndoc/Makefile\nREADME.HP-UX\ncontrib/python-plugin/README\nREADME.OSX\ndists/README\nHACKING.pod\ndebian/README.source\nREADME.rst\ndebian/README.PluginConfiguration\nt/tls/README\nt/tls/Makefile\nMakefile\n\n--- status ---\n## master\n","exit_code":0,"status":"completed"}}
{"type":"item.started","item":{"id":"item_4","type":"collab_tool_call","tool":"spawn_agent","sender_thread_id":"01a0ec45-2374-7b53-ba81-fd213084e860","receiver_thread_ids":[],"prompt":"Read-only scout. Inspect munin-node Perl event loop, callers around select/pselect/alarm/sockets and any local IO/event helpers. Do not edit, spawn agents, run recursive review, or public/destructive actions. Report paths/lines, likely behavior and whether evidence supports a patch.","agents_states":{},"status":"in_progress"}}
{"type":"item.completed","item":{"id":"item_4","type":"collab_tool_call","tool":"spawn_agent","sender_thread_id":"01a0ec45-2374-7b53-ba81-fd213084e860","receiver_thread_ids":["01a0ec45-5052-7eb1-b4e8-6f0a8c5362d4"],"prompt":"Read-only scout. Inspect munin-node Perl event loop, callers around select/pselect/alarm/sockets and any local IO/event helpers. Do not edit, spawn agents, run recursive review, or public/destructive actions. Report paths/lines, likely behavior and whether evidence supports a patch.","agents_states":{"01a0ec45-5052-7eb1-b4e8-6f0a8c5362d4":{"status":"pending_init","message":null}},"status":"completed"}}
{"type":"item.completed","item":{"id":"item_5","type":"reasoning","text":"**Inspecting docs and entrypoint**"}}
{"type":"item.started","item":{"id":"item_6","type":"command_execution","command":"/bin/bash -lc \"printf '%s\\\\n' '--- guidance ---'; sed -n '1,220p' CONTRIBUTING.md; printf '\\\\n--- hacking ---\\\\n'; sed -n '1,200p' HACKING.pod; printf '\\\\n--- entrypoint ---\\\\n'; rg -n 'select|pselect|IO::Select|while\\\\s*\\\\(|sleep|accept|timeout' node/sbin/munin-node lib/Munin 2>/dev/null | head -180; printf '\\\\n--- top-level ---\\\\n'; ls -la | head -80; printf '\\\\n--- candidates ---\\\\n'; find . -maxdepth 3 -iname '*munin-node*' -o -iname '*node*' | head -100\"","aggregated_output":"","exit_code":null,"status":"in_progress"}}
{"type":"item.completed","item":{"id":"item_6","type":"command_execution","command":"/bin/bash -lc \"printf '%s\\\\n' '--- guidance ---'; sed -n '1,220p' CONTRIBUTING.md; printf '\\\\n--- hacking ---\\\\n'; sed -n '1,200p' HACKING.pod; printf '\\\\n--- entrypoint ---\\\\n'; rg -n 'select|pselect|IO::Select|while\\\\s*\\\\(|sleep|accept|timeout' node/sbin/munin-node lib/Munin 2>/dev/null | head -180; printf '\\\\n--- top-level ---\\\\n'; ls -la | head -80; printf '\\\\n--- candidates ---\\\\n'; find . -maxdepth 3 -iname '*munin-node*' -o -iname '*node*' | head -100\"","aggregated_output":"--- guidance ---\n# Contributing to Munin\n\nFirst off, thanks for taking the time to contribute!\n\nRead on for [more details](http://guide.munin-monitoring.org/en/latest/others/index.html#contributing) in the Guide.\n\n## Submitting Issues\n\n* Include the version of Munin you are using and the OS.\n* Include screenshots whenever possible; they are immensely helpful.\n* Include any relevant logs; the mere act of writing a detailed bug usually gives the answer.\n\n## Pull Requests\n\n* Include screenshots in your pull request if relevant.\n* End files with a newline.\n\n## Git Commit Messages\n\n* Use the present tense (\"Add feature\" not \"Added feature\")\n* Use the imperative mood (\"Move cursor to...\" not \"Moves cursor to...\")\n* Use the standard commit formatting (look at the one already made)\n\n## Coding style\n\n* Refer to [HACKING.pod](HACKING.pod)\n\n--- hacking ---\n# this is in pod format (try `perldoc HACKING.pod`)\n\n=pod\n\n=head1 NAME\n\nHACKING.pod - contributing to Munin\n\n=head1 SYNOPSIS\n\nThis is the guide for Munin internals contributors (developers,\ntesters, documenters.)\n\nIf you are looking for more information on how to I<use> Munin you\nprobably want L<http://guide.munin-monitoring.org/> instead.\n\nYou can find some additional contributing information at\nL<http://guide.munin-monitoring.org/en/latest/others/index.html#contributing>.\n\nThe Munin code is marked by years on the battle front. You will\ntherefore find code that deviates from the guidelines defined\nhere. However, all new code should be made to comply.\n\n\n=head1 GETTING STARTED\n\n\n=head2 GITHUB\n\nThe main development of Munin is happening on L<https://github.com>. After\nregistering an account you can report feature requests and issues\n(L<https://github.com/munin-monitoring/munin/issues/new/choose>) and create\npull requests (L<https://github.com/munin-monitoring/munin/pulls>).\n\nThere are two interesting branches:\n\n=over\n\n=item I<stable-2.0>\n\nAs the name suggests this is the stable branch for versions (currently 2.0.x).\nPlease base your bug-fix patches (for core and plugins) on this branch.\nThey will get merged by time into master.\n\n=item I<master>\n\nThis is the development branch of munin.\nPlease base your non bug-fix patches, like new features/plugins, rewrites,\ncleanup etc., on this branch.\n\n=back\n\n\n=head2 THE SANDBOX\n\nIn the B<dev_scripts> directory you will find scripts that are meant to be\nuseful for developing. Most of them are tools for creating and using\nMunin in a sandbox.\n\n=over\n\n=item B<install>\n\nTo make a clean rebuild of the sandbox:\n\n  ./dev_scripts/install clean\n  ./dev_scripts/install node\n\nTo just install the latest changes:\n\n  ./dev_scripts/install\n\n=item B<enable/disable tls>\n\nTo test TLS, you can enable a paranoid TLS configuration by running:\n\n  ./dev_scripts/enable_tls\n\nAnd disable it with:\n\n  ./dev_scripts/disable_tls\n\n=item B<start/stop munin-node>\n\n  ./dev_scripts/start_munin-node [munin-node params ...]\n\nAnd\n\n  ./dev_scripts/stop_munin-node\n\nTo do both:\n\n  ./dev_scripts/restart_munin-node [munin-node params ...]\n\n=item B<query_munin_node>\n\nUse this command to query the munin-node directly:\n\n  ./dev_scripts/query_munin_node list\n\n=item B<run>\n\nTo run Munin programs (munin-update, munin-cron, munin-node-configure,\nmunin-run etc.), use this command.\nIt ensures a correct invocation in relation to perl's taint mode.\n\n  ./dev_scripts/run CMD [CMD args ...]\n\n=item B<start munin-httpd>\n\nTo start the Munin http web front-end, run the following:\n\n  ./dev_scripts/start_munin-httpd\n\nThis will start the web server on port 4946.\n\nMake sure to run B<munin-update> at least once before visiting the site.\n\n=back\n\n\n=head1 CODING STYLE\n\n=head2 GENERAL\n\n=over 12\n\n=item C<Strictness and Warnings>\n\nPerl code should be written in tainted-mode with the settings I<use strict;>\nand I<use warnings;>.\n\nThere should be no perl warnings when running Munin.\n\n=item C<Spaces vs Tabs>\n\nIn general we prefer indentation via tabs.\n\nBut due to many space based indentations in the current codebase is it\nsufficient to follow the overall style of the file in question.\n\nWhen a sub-block is started, always use one level.\n\n=item C<Wrapping>\n\nWrapping in code is discouraged. It does not make any sense to force wrap at a\nfixed amount of columns. A much better rule is the following (1 stmt/line).\n\nComments on the other side, are to be wrapped at 78 chars, since they are a\nblock of text anyway. Any space formatting is encouraged, since it usually\nhelps. ASCII art is a must ;-)\n\n=item C<1 stmt/line>\n\nOnly put 1 statement per line. If the expression is complex, break it in\nelementary sub-expressions, with meaningful temporary variables.\n\n=item C<exception handling>\n\nCurrently there is no unified approach to handling exceptions. Use L<Carp>?\n\n  use Carp;\n  croak(\"Foo happened!\");\n\n  confess(\"Foo happened!\"); # With stack trace\n\nExceptions are caught with an eval:\n\n  eval {\n    # Exceptionally scary code\n  };\n  if ($@) {\n    # Handle exception\n  }\n\n=item C<punctuation variables>\n\nDon't use punctuation variables (see Perl Best Practices page 79.). Use the\nEnglish clear names:\n\n  use English qw(-no_match_vars);\n\nWe'll add an exception for $_, $!, $0, $@ and $$ as they should be fairly widely\nrecognised.\n\n=back\n\n\n=head2 PERLTIDY [inactive]\n\nWe use B<perltidy> to automatically format perl code. This ensures a consistent\nstyle and a tool-based enforcement. The exact configuration can be seen in the\nfile I<.perltidyrc>. Please try to use it before any contribution by running\nC<make apply-formatting>.\n\nB<TODO>: discuss perltidy style, see #1014\n\n\n=head2 PERLCRITIC\n\n\n--- entrypoint ---\nlib/Munin/Plugin.pm:222:    # accept\" you know.\nlib/Munin/Plugin.pm:686:\twhile (<$fh>) {\nlib/Munin/Plugin.pm:692:    } while sleep 1;\nlib/Munin/Common/Daemon.pm:73:The function should be called as soon as the service is ready to accept\nlib/Munin/Node/SNMPConfig.pm:112:            # TODO: Check whether there was a timeout?  that would indicate a\nlib/Munin/Node/SNMPConfig.pm:115:            # devices that timeout rather than return noSuchObject?  compromise\nlib/Munin/Node/SNMPConfig.pm:116:            # would be to have a --ignore-snmp-timeouts cmdline flag.\nlib/Munin/Node/SNMPConfig.pm:166:        while (my ($oid, $value) = each %$result) {\nlib/Munin/Node/SNMPConfig.pm:176:        while (my ($index, $row) = each %table) {\nlib/Munin/Master/Graph.pm:138:\t# Only accept known formats\nlib/Munin/Master/Graph.pm:239:\t\t\t\tselect hn.id\nlib/Munin/Master/Graph.pm:288:\twhile (my (\nlib/Munin/Master/Graph.pm:644:\t\twhile (sysread($rrd_fh, $buffer, 4096)) { print $buffer; }\nlib/Munin/Master/Graph.pm:727:\twhile ( defined ( my $arg = shift @_ )) {\nlib/Munin/Master/Graph.pm:846:\tmy ($_rrdfile, $_rrdfield, $_lastupdated) = $dbh->selectrow_array(\"\nlib/Munin/Master/LimitsOld.pm:808:    while (defined($text) && length($text)) {\nlib/Munin/Master/Node.pm:26:# Note: This timeout governs both small commands and waiting for the total\nlib/Munin/Master/Node.pm:41:        io_timeout => 120,\nlib/Munin/Master/Node.pm:94:\t\tTimeout   => $config->{timeout}\nlib/Munin/Master/Node.pm:150:    # there is output. This allows one to accept SSH connections where\nlib/Munin/Master/Node.pm:409:    my $timed_out = !do_with_timeout($self->{io_timeout}, sub {\nlib/Munin/Master/Node.pm:469:    while(my $line = $self->_node_read_single()) {\nlib/Munin/Common/Logger.pm:285:Option \"level\" sets the minimum log level. Takes one argument, which is the log level to accept.\nlib/Munin/Common/Timeout.pm:14:        &do_with_timeout\nlib/Munin/Common/Timeout.pm:19:my $current_timeout_epoch;\nlib/Munin/Common/Timeout.pm:25:# $timeout is relative seconds, $timeout_epoch is absolute.\nlib/Munin/Common/Timeout.pm:26:sub do_with_timeout {\nlib/Munin/Common/Timeout.pm:27:    my ($timeout, $block) = @_;\nlib/Munin/Common/Timeout.pm:29:    croak 'Argument exception: $timeout'\nlib/Munin/Common/Timeout.pm:30:        unless $timeout && $timeout =~ /^\\d+$/;\nlib/Munin/Common/Timeout.pm:34:    my $new_timeout_epoch = time + $timeout;\nlib/Munin/Common/Timeout.pm:36:    # Nested timeouts cannot extend the global timeout,\nlib/Munin/Common/Timeout.pm:38:    if ($current_timeout_epoch && $new_timeout_epoch > $current_timeout_epoch - 5) {\nlib/Munin/Common/Timeout.pm:39:\t    $new_timeout_epoch = $current_timeout_epoch - 5;\nlib/Munin/Common/Timeout.pm:42:    if ($new_timeout_epoch <= time) {\nlib/Munin/Common/Timeout.pm:47:    # Ok, going under new timeout setting\nlib/Munin/Common/Timeout.pm:48:    my $old_current_timeout_epoch = $current_timeout_epoch;\nlib/Munin/Common/Timeout.pm:49:    $current_timeout_epoch = $new_timeout_epoch;\nlib/Munin/Common/Timeout.pm:54:        alarm ($new_timeout_epoch - time);\nlib/Munin/Common/Timeout.pm:59:    # Restore the old $current_timeout_epoch...\nlib/Munin/Common/Timeout.pm:60:    $current_timeout_epoch = $old_current_timeout_epoch;\nlib/Munin/Common/Timeout.pm:63:    if ($current_timeout_epoch) {\nlib/Munin/Common/Timeout.pm:64:       my $timeleft = $current_timeout_epoch - time;\nlib/Munin/Common/Timeout.pm:91:Munin::Common::Timeout - Run code with a timeout. May nest.\nlib/Munin/Common/Timeout.pm:98: do_with_timeout(50, sub {\nlib/Munin/Common/Timeout.pm:100: \tdo_with_timeout(5, sub {\nlib/Munin/Common/Timeout.pm:116:=item B<do_with_timeout>\nlib/Munin/Common/Timeout.pm:118: my $finished_with_no_timeout = do_with_timeout($seconds, $code_ref)\nlib/Munin/Common/Timeout.pm:121:Executes $block with a timeout of $seconds.  Returns the return value of the $block\nlib/Munin/Common/Timeout.pm:122:if it completed within the timeout.  If the timeout is reached and the code is still\nlib/Munin/Common/Timeout.pm:126:if a timeout occurred.\nlib/Munin/Common/Timeout.pm:128:Calls to do_with_timeout() can be nested.  Any exceptions raised\nlib/Munin/Node/Configure/History.pm:47:    while (my $line = <$HIST>) {\nlib/Munin/Common/Config.pm:126:\ttimeout\nlib/Munin/Plugin/Pgsql.pm:39:All plugins based on Munin::Plugin::Pgsql accepts all the environment\nlib/Munin/Plugin/Pgsql.pm:583:        while ($q =~ s/%%FILTER%%/$self->{wildcardfilter}/) {\nlib/Munin/Plugin/Pgsql.pm:598:            while ($q =~ s/%%PARAM$i%%/$pieces[$i]/) {\nlib/Munin/Plugin/Pgsql.pm:621:        # selected piece.\nlib/Munin/Common/Defaults.pm.PL:91:    while ( my ( $k, $v ) = each %defaults ) {\nlib/Munin/Common/Defaults.pm.PL:102:    while ( my ( $k, $v ) = each %defaults ) {\nlib/Munin/Master/UpdateWorker.pm:91:\t# A I/O timeout results in a violent exit.  Catch and handle.\nlib/Munin/Master/UpdateWorker.pm:117:\t\t# and process it later. It will surely timeout, and use a truckload\nlib/Munin/Master/UpdateWorker.pm:363:\t\twhile (my ($_name, $_value) = $sth_service_attrs->fetchrow_array()) {\nlib/Munin/Master/UpdateWorker.pm:373:\t\twhile (my ($_field, $_name, $_value) = $sth_fields_attr->fetchrow_array()) {\nlib/Munin/Master/UpdateWorker.pm:745:\t\t\twhile ( my @row = $sth_rrdinfos->fetchrow_array ) {\nlib/Munin/Common/SyncDictFile.pm:42:\twhile(my $line = <$fh>) {\nlib/Munin/Common/SyncDictFile.pm:70:\twhile(my $line = <$fh>) {\nlib/Munin/Common/SyncDictFile.pm:85:\twhile(my $line = <$fh>) {\nlib/Munin/Common/SyncDictFile.pm:101:\twhile(my $line = <$fh>) {\nlib/Munin/Common/SyncDictFile.pm:125:\twhile(my $line = <$fh>) {\nlib/Munin/Common/SyncDictFile.pm:158:\twhile(my $line = <$fh>) {\nlib/Munin/Common/TLS.pm:94:    $self->_accept_or_connect(\\%tls_verified);\nlib/Munin/Common/TLS.pm:239:            return 1;           # accept\nlib/Munin/Common/TLS.pm:293:sub _accept_or_connect {\nlib/Munin/Common/TLS.pm:299:        $res = Net::SSLeay::accept($self->{tls_session});\nlib/Munin/Master/Update.pm:125:    # Place global munin-update timeout here.\nlib/Munin/Master/Update.pm:281:\tunless ($dbh->selectrow_array(\"SELECT count(1) FROM grp WHERE id = 0\")) {\nlib/Munin/Master/Update.pm:294:\twhile (my ($_name, $_value) = $sth->fetchrow_array()) {\nlib/Munin/Plugin/HTTP.pm:40:  env.http_timeout 25\nlib/Munin/Plugin/HTTP.pm:48:=item C<env.http_timeout>\nlib/Munin/Plugin/HTTP.pm:50:The timeout, in seconds, to use for HTTP requests. Default 25, to give\nlib/Munin/Plugin/HTTP.pm:97:  my $ua = LWP::UserAgent->new(timeout => ($ENV{'http_timeout'} || 25));\nlib/Munin/Plugin/Framework.pm:102:    while (my ($name, $graph) = each %{ $self->{graphs} } ) {\nlib/Munin/Plugin/Framework.pm:119:      while ( my ($field, $data) = each %{ $graph->{fields} } ) {\nlib/Munin/Plugin/Framework.pm:172:  while (my ($name, $graph) = each %{$self->{graphs}} ) {\nlib/Munin/Plugin/Framework.pm:175:    while ( my ($field, $data) = each %{$graph->{fields}} ) {\nlib/Munin/Node/Configure/Plugin.pm:196:    while (<$PLUGIN>) {\nlib/Munin/Master/Host.pm:45:    while (defined($group)) {\nlib/Munin/Node/Config.pm:61:    while (my $line = <$IO_HANDLE>) {\nlib/Munin/Node/Config.pm:93:        global_timeout\nlib/Munin/Node/Config.pm:97:        timeout\nlib/Munin/Node/Config.pm:224:    while (my $line = <$IO_HANDLE>) {\nlib/Munin/Node/Config.pm:278:    elsif ($var_name eq 'timeout') {\nlib/Munin/Node/Config.pm:279:        return (timeout => $var_value);\nlib/Munin/Node/Server.pm:55:    # the port is bound, the service is prepared: we can start accepting requests\nlib/Munin/Node/Server.pm:137:\tmy $global_timeout = $config->{global_timeout} || (60 * 15); # Defaults to 15 min. Should be enough\nlib/Munin/Node/Server.pm:138:        $timed_out = !do_with_timeout($global_timeout, sub {\nlib/Munin/Node/Server.pm:139:            while (defined ($line = _net_read($session))) {\nlib/Munin/Node/Server.pm:152:    ERROR(\"Node side timeout while processing: '$line'\") if ($timed_out);\nlib/Munin/Plugin/SNMP.pm:188:=item C<env.timeout>\nlib/Munin/Plugin/SNMP.pm:190:The timeout in seconds to use. Default 5.\nlib/Munin/Plugin/SNMP.pm:223:    push @options, (-timeout => $ENV{timeout}) if $ENV{timeout};\nlib/Munin/Plugin/SNMP.pm:519:    while (my ($oid, $value) = each %$response) {\nlib/Munin/Node/SpoolReader.pm:161:        while (<$fh>) {\nlib/Munin/Node/SpoolReader.pm:176:        while (<$fh>) {\nlib/Munin/Node/Service.pm:29:    $args{timeout}  ||= 60; # Default transaction timeout : 1 min\nlib/Munin/Node/Service.pm:137:    while (my ($k, $v) = each %$env) {\nlib/Munin/Node/Service.pm:311:    my $timeout = $config->{sconf}{$service}{timeout}\nlib/Munin/Node/Service.pm:312:               || $self->{timeout};\nlib/Munin/Node/Service.pm:321:    return Munin::Node::OS->run_as_child($timeout, $run_service);\nlib/Munin/Node/Service.pm:337: my $services = Munin::Node::Service->new(timeout => 30);\nlib/Munin/Node/Service.pm:365:=item C<timeout>\nlib/Munin/Node/Service.pm:367:The default timeout for services.  Services taking longer than this to run will\nlib/Munin/Node/Service.pm:368:be killed.  Service-specific timeouts will (as set in the service configuration\nlib/Munin/Node/Service.pm:424:the service takes longer than the timeout, it will be terminated.\nlib/Munin/Master/Config.pm:161:\t\ttimeout          => 180,\nlib/Munin/Master/Config.pm:496:    while (my $line = <$io>) {\nlib/Munin/Node/OS.pm:98:    while (1) {\nlib/Munin/Node/OS.pm:99: \tmy $nfound = select($rout=$rin, $wout=$win, $eout=$ein, undef);\nlib/Munin/Node/OS.pm:121:\t# Since we are not using a timeout that must mean that something\nlib/Munin/Node/OS.pm:134:    my ($self, $timeout, $code, @args) = @_;\nlib/Munin/Node/OS.pm:148:        # Give the child till the timeout to finish up\nlib/Munin/Node/OS.pm:155:        my $timed_out = !do_with_timeout($timeout, $read_it_and_reap);\nlib/Munin/Node/OS.pm:196:    sleep 2;\nlib/Munin/Node/OS.pm:314:  $result = run_as_child($timeout, $coderef, @arguments);\nlib/Munin/Node/OS.pm:317:$timeout seconds for it to complete.  Returns a hashref\nlib/Munin/Master/HTML.pm:67:\t\twhile (my $line = <$fh>) { print $line; }\nlib/Munin/Master/HTML.pm:147:\t\twhile (my ($_name, $_path) = $sth->fetchrow_array) {\nlib/Munin/Master/HTML.pm:159:\t\twhile (my ($_category) = $sth->fetchrow_array) {\nlib/Munin/Master/HTML.pm:234:\t\twhile (my ($_node_url, $_node_name, $_url, $_s_name, $_c, $_w, $_u) = $sth->fetchrow_array) {\nlib/Munin/Master/HTML.pm:288:\t\t\t\tAND EXISTS (select sa.id from service_attr sa where sa.id = s.id)\nlib/Munin/Master/HTML.pm:296:\t\t\t\tAND EXISTS (select sa.id from service_attr sa where sa.id = s.id)\nlib/Munin/Master/HTML.pm:302:\t\twhile (my ($_service, $_service_title) = $sth_cat->fetchrow_array) {\nlib/Munin/Master/HTML.pm:356:\t\twhile (my (undef, $_name, $_url) = $sth_peer->fetchrow_array) {\nlib/Munin/Master/HTML.pm:390:\t\t\twhile (my ($cat_name) = $sth_cat->fetchrow_array) {\nlib/Munin/Master/HTML.pm:424:\t\twhile (my ($_name, $_url) = $sth_peer->fetchrow_array) {\nlib/Munin/Master/HTML.pm:440:\t\twhile (my ($_category_name) = $sth_category->fetchrow_array) {\nlib/Munin/Master/HTML.pm:626:\twhile (my ($_n_id, $_name, $_path, $_node_path) = $sth_node->fetchrow_array) {\nlib/Munin/Master/HTML.pm:634:\t\twhile (my ($_category_name) = $sth->fetchrow_array) {\nlib/Munin/Master/HTML.pm:684:\twhile (my ($service_name, $service_title) = $sth_srv->fetchrow_array) {\nlib/Munin/Master/HTML.pm:690:\t\twhile (my ($node_name, $node_url, $srv_url, $srv_label) = $sth_node->fetchrow_array) {\nlib/Munin/Master/HTML.pm:731:\twhile (my ($_s_id, $_service_title, $_subgraphs, $_url, $_node_name, $_node_url) = $sth->fetchrow_array) {\nlib/Munin/Master/HTML.pm:759:\t\tAND EXISTS (select sa.id from service_attr sa where sa.id = s.id)\nlib/Munin/Master/HTML.pm:769:\twhile (my ($_s_id, $_s_name, $_service_title, $_subgraphs, $_url, $_state_warning, $_state_critical) = $sth->fetchrow_array) {\nlib/Munin/Master/HTML.pm:814:\twhile (my ($_ds_name, $_ds_s_warn, $_ds_s_crit, $_ds_graph, $_ds_label, $_ds_type, $_ds_warn, $_ds_crit, $_ds_info) =\nlib/Munin/Master/HTML.pm:844:\tmy ($value) = $dbh->selectrow_array(\"SELECT value FROM param WHERE name = ?\", undef, ($param));\n\n--- top-level ---\ntotal 760\ndrwxr-xr-x 19 root root   4096 Sep 29 12:26 .\ndrwxr-xr-x  3 root root   4096 Sep 29 12:25 ..\ndr-xr-xr-x  2 root root     40 Sep 29 12:26 .agents\n-rw-r--r--  1 root root   2012 Jan 12  2022 .codespell.exclude\n-rw-r--r--  1 root root     25 Jan 12  2022 .codespell.ignore-words\ndr-xr-xr-x  2 root root     40 Sep 29 12:26 .codex\n-rw-r--r--  1 root root     33 Jan 12  2022 .dockerignore\n-rw-r--r--  1 root root     85 Jan 12  2022 .flake8\ndrwxr-xr-x  7 root root   4096 Sep 29 12:25 .git\n-rw-r--r--  1 root root    128 Jan 12  2022 .gitattributes\ndrwxr-xr-x  4 root root   4096 Jan 12  2022 .github\n-rw-r--r--  1 root root    458 Jan 12  2022 .gitignore\ndrwxr-xr-x  6 root root   4096 May 21 01:37 .pc\n-rw-r--r--  1 root root   1102 Jan 12  2022 .perlcriticrc\n-rw-r--r--  1 root root   1252 Jan 12  2022 .perltidyrc\n-rw-r--r--  1 root root   1576 Jan 12  2022 Announce-2.0\n-rwxr-xr-x  1 root root   9957 Jan 12  2022 Build.PL\n-rw-r--r--  1 root root    824 Jan 12  2022 CONTRIBUTING.md\n-rw-r--r--  1 root root   1713 Jan 12  2022 COPYING\n-rw-r--r--  1 root root 365418 Jan 12  2022 ChangeLog\n-rw-r--r--  1 root root   1606 Jan 12  2022 Checklist\n-rw-r--r--  1 root root    438 Jan 12  2022 Dockerfile\n-rw-r--r--  1 root root   2398 Jan 12  2022 Dockerfile.base\n-rw-r--r--  1 root root     43 Jan 12  2022 Dockerfile.dev\n-rw-r--r--  1 root root   6471 Jan 12  2022 HACKING.pod\n-rw-r--r--  1 root root    771 Jan 12  2022 INSTALL.rst\n-rw-r--r--  1 root root   1260 Jan 12  2022 MANIFEST.SKIP\n-rw-r--r--  1 root root   8156 Jan 12  2022 Makefile\n-rw-r--r--  1 root root   6439 Jan 12  2022 Makefile.config\n-rw-r--r--  1 root root   1394 Jan 12  2022 Makefile.javaplugin\n-rw-r--r--  1 root root    535 Jan 12  2022 README.HP-UX\n-rw-r--r--  1 root root   1012 Jan 12  2022 README.OSX\n-rw-r--r--  1 root root   1792 Jan 12  2022 README.build-refactoring\n-rw-r--r--  1 root root   2954 Jan 12  2022 README.rst\n-rw-r--r--  1 root root      9 Jan 12  2022 RELEASE\n-rw-r--r--  1 root root   2087 Jan 12  2022 authors\ndrwxr-xr-x  5 root root   4096 Jan 12  2022 contrib\n-rw-r--r--  1 root root   1743 Jan 12  2022 cpanfile\ndrwxr-xr-x  6 root root   4096 Feb 10  2022 debian\ndrwxr-xr-x  2 root root   4096 Jan 12  2022 dev_scripts\ndrwxr-xr-x  2 root root   4096 Jan 12  2022 dists\ndrwxr-xr-x 17 root root   4096 Jan 12  2022 doc\ndrwxr-xr-x  2 root root   4096 Jan 12  2022 etc\n-rwxr-xr-x  1 root root   2803 Jan 12  2022 getversion\ndrwxr-xr-x  3 root root   4096 Jan 12  2022 lib\n-rw-r--r--  1 root root  12025 Jan 12  2022 logo-horizontal-neg.svg\n-rw-r--r--  1 root root  11982 Jan 12  2022 logo-horizontal.svg\n-rw-r--r--  1 root root 129413 Jan 12  2022 logo.eps\n-rw-r--r--  1 root root  26569 Jan 12  2022 logo.png\n-rw-r--r--  1 root root   9871 Jan 12  2022 logo.svg\ndrwxr-xr-x 15 root root   4096 Jan 12  2022 plugins\ndrwxr-xr-x  2 root root   4096 May 21 01:37 script\ndrwxr-xr-x  5 root root   4096 Jan 12  2022 t\ndrwxr-xr-x  4 root root   4096 Jan 12  2022 web\ndrwxr-xr-x  2 root root   4096 Jan 12  2022 xt\n\n--- candidates ---\n./plugins/node.d.sunos\n./plugins/node.d.sunos/df_inode\n./plugins/node.d.aix\n./plugins/node.d.cygwin\n./plugins/node.d.netbsd\n./plugins/node.d.netbsd/df_inode\n./plugins/node.d.java\n./plugins/node.d\n./plugins/node.d/snmp__netapp_inodeusage_\n./plugins/node.d/df_inode\n./plugins/node.d.openbsd\n./plugins/node.d.openbsd/df_inode\n./plugins/node.d.darwin\n./plugins/node.d.darwin/df_inode\n./plugins/node.d.linux\n./plugins/node.d.hp-ux\n./plugins/node.d.hp-ux/df_inode\n./plugins/node.d.debug\n./plugins/node.d.freebsd\n./plugins/node.d.freebsd/df_inode\n./t/tls/node_cert.pem\n./t/tls/node_key.pem\n./t/config/munin-node.conf\n./debian/munin-node.cron.d\n./debian/munin-node.bug-script\n./debian/munin-node.dirs\n./debian/munin-node.manpages\n./debian/munin-node.install\n./debian/munin-node.init\n./debian/munin-node.service\n./debian/tests/munin-node\n./debian/tests/node-sysvinit\n./debian/tests/node-systemd\n./debian/munin-node.docs\n./debian/munin-node.postinst\n./debian/munin-node.NEWS\n./debian/munin-node.README.Debian\n./debian/libmunin-node-perl.install\n./debian/munin-node.bug-control\n./debian/munin-node.triggers\n./debian/munin-node.postrm\n./web/templates/munin-nodeview.tmpl\n./lib/Munin/Node\n./script/munin-node-configure\n./script/munin-node\n./contrib/munin-node-debug\n./dev_scripts/query_munin_node\n./dev_scripts/restart_munin-node\n./dev_scripts/start_munin-node\n./dev_scripts/stop_munin-node\n./dev_scripts/run_debug_node\n./doc/node\n./doc/reference/munin-node.rst\n./doc/reference/munin-node.conf.rst\n./doc/reference/munin-node-configure.rst\n./etc/munin-node.conf.PL\n","exit_code":0,"status":"completed"}}
{"type":"error","message":"exceeded retry limit, last status: 429 Too Many Requests, request id: 597f939c-6802-4839-8a91-335268706f8f"}
{"type":"turn.failed","error":{"message":"exceeded retry limit, last status: 429 Too Many Requests, request id: 597f939c-6802-4839-8a91-335268706f8f"}}

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

Response

## Plan Pass



## Workflow Note

{"type":"item.completed","item":{"id":"item_4","type":"reasoning","text":"**Locating repository files**"}}
{"type":"item.started","item":{"id":"item_5","type":"collab_tool_call","tool":"spawn_agent","sender_thread_id":"01a0ec03-ad63-7611-8442-2e2f953e9e9b","receiver_thread_ids":[],"prompt":"Read-only scout: inspect munin-node script entrypoint and nearby event-loop/select code in workspace. Assess whether evidence supports script busy loop vs expected timed blocking; identify local wrappers/helpers and exact relevant paths. Do not edit, spawn agents, run recursive reviews, or external/destructive actions. Return concise findings.","agents_states":{},"status":"in_progress"}}
{"type":"item.completed","item":{"id":"item_5","type":"collab_tool_call","tool":"spawn_agent","sender_thread_id":"01a0ec03-ad63-7611-8442-2e2f953e9e9b","receiver_thread_ids":["01a0ec03-f82f-7fa3-bfa9-56480f430fd1"],"prompt":"Read-only scout: inspect munin-node script entrypoint and nearby event-loop/select code in workspace. Assess whether evidence supports script busy loop vs expected timed blocking; identify local wrappers/helpers and exact relevant paths. Do not edit, spawn agents, run recursive reviews, or external/destructive actions. Return concise findings.","agents_states":{"01a0ec03-f82f-7fa3-bfa9-56480f430fd1":{"status":"pending_init","message":null}},"status":"completed"}}
{"type":"item.completed","item":{"id":"item_6","type":"reasoning","text":"**Checking helper docs**"}}
{"type":"item.started","item":{"id":"item_7","type":"collab_tool_call","tool":"spawn_agent","sender_thread_id":"01a0ec03-ad63-7611-8442-2e2f953e9e9b","receiver_thread_ids":[],"prompt":"Read-only scout: inspect CONTRIBUTING/HACKING/README guidance, Makefile build/test targets, project branch metadata, and local Perl IO/process/event-loop helper conventions relevant to munin-node. Do not edit, spawn agents, run recursive reviews, or external/destructive actions. Return findings with exact paths and recommended project-level validation command.","agents_states":{},"status":"in_progress"}}
{"type":"item.completed","item":{"id":"item_7","type":"collab_tool_call","tool":"spawn_agent","sender_thread_id":"01a0ec03-ad63-7611-8442-2e2f953e9e9b","receiver_thread_ids":["01a0ec04-0d6a-7552-829a-57ba0ed67104"],"prompt":"Read-only scout: inspect CONTRIBUTING/HACKING/README guidance, Makefile build/test targets, project branch metadata, and local Perl IO/process/event-loop helper conventions relevant to munin-node. Do not edit, spawn agents, run recursive reviews, or external/destructive actions. Return findings with exact paths and recommended project-level validation command.","agents_states":{"01a0ec04-0d6a-7552-829a-57ba0ed67104":{"status":"pending_init","message":null}},"status":"completed"}}
{"type":"error","message":"exceeded retry limit, last status: 429 Too Many Requests, request id: 4847281d-f5f2-41d0-bf3d-1865dc17f850"}
{"type":"turn.failed","error":{"message":"exceeded retry limit, last status: 429 Too Many Requests, request id: 4847281d-f5f2-41d0-bf3d-1865dc17f850"}}

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

Response

## Plan Pass



## Workflow Note

{"type":"item.completed","item":{"id":"item_3","type":"reasoning","text":"**Preparing local source inspection**"}}
{"type":"item.completed","item":{"id":"item_4","type":"agent_message","text":"The evidence is syscall-level and not proof of a script spin; I’m checking entrypoint logic and project conventions independently."}}
{"type":"item.started","item":{"id":"item_5","type":"collab_tool_call","tool":"spawn_agent","sender_thread_id":"01a0ebc0-a39f-7ec0-9a61-762fd391a4be","receiver_thread_ids":[],"prompt":"Read-only scout: inspect Munin script/application entrypoint `/usr/sbin/munin-node` source in workspace, its event-loop relevant callers/helpers. Report plausible paths and whether evidence supports a bug. Do not edit, spawn agents, run recursive reviews, or external/destructive actions.","agents_states":{},"status":"in_progress"}}
{"type":"item.completed","item":{"id":"item_5","type":"collab_tool_call","tool":"spawn_agent","sender_thread_id":"01a0ebc0-a39f-7ec0-9a61-762fd391a4be","receiver_thread_ids":["01a0ebc0-cd6c-7e61-a157-27236131f48e"],"prompt":"Read-only scout: inspect Munin script/application entrypoint `/usr/sbin/munin-node` source in workspace, its event-loop relevant callers/helpers. Report plausible paths and whether evidence supports a bug. Do not edit, spawn agents, run recursive reviews, or external/destructive actions.","agents_states":{"01a0ebc0-cd6c-7e61-a157-27236131f48e":{"status":"pending_init","message":null}},"status":"completed"}}
{"type":"item.started","item":{"id":"item_6","type":"collab_tool_call","tool":"spawn_agent","sender_thread_id":"01a0ebc0-a39f-7ec0-9a61-762fd391a4be","receiver_thread_ids":[],"prompt":"Read-only independent scout: check CONTRIBUTING/HACKING/README and Makefile for upstream branch/style guidance, source tree status and test/build entrypoints; inspect available history if pertinent. Report concise results. Do not edit, spawn agents, run recursive reviews, or perform external/destructive actions.","agents_states":{},"status":"in_progress"}}
{"type":"item.completed","item":{"id":"item_6","type":"collab_tool_call","tool":"spawn_agent","sender_thread_id":"01a0ebc0-a39f-7ec0-9a61-762fd391a4be","receiver_thread_ids":["01a0ebc0-da17-73f1-98c1-a94b26054d78"],"prompt":"Read-only independent scout: check CONTRIBUTING/HACKING/README and Makefile for upstream branch/style guidance, source tree status and test/build entrypoints; inspect available history if pertinent. Report concise results. Do not edit, spawn agents, run recursive reviews, or perform external/destructive actions.","agents_states":{"01a0ebc0-da17-73f1-98c1-a94b26054d78":{"status":"pending_init","message":null}},"status":"completed"}}
{"type":"error","message":"exceeded retry limit, last status: 429 Too Many Requests, request id: 9f39731c-3cae-469d-9afd-806c747ef6db"}
{"type":"turn.failed","error":{"message":"exceeded retry limit, last status: 429 Too Many Requests, request id: 9f39731c-3cae-469d-9afd-806c747ef6db"}}

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

Response

## Plan Pass



## Workflow Note

{"type":"item.completed","item":{"id":"item_4","type":"reasoning","text":"**Inspecting docs and subsystem**"}}
{"type":"item.completed","item":{"id":"item_5","type":"agent_message","text":"The signal is indirect; I’m tracing the node script and project conventions, not runtime internals."}}
{"type":"item.started","item":{"id":"item_6","type":"command_execution","command":"/bin/bash -lc \"cat CONTRIBUTING.md; printf '\\\\n--- HACKING ---\\\\n'; cat HACKING.pod; printf '\\\\n--- README/docs files ---\\\\n'; rg --files | rg '(\"'^README|''^doc/|''^docs/|''^dev-docs/)'\"'; printf '\\\\n--- entrypoint ---\\\\n'; rg -n 'select|pselect|IO::Select|poll|accept|foreground|while\\\\s*\\\\(' munin-node/lib munin-node 2>/dev/null | head -240\"","aggregated_output":"","exit_code":null,"status":"in_progress"}}
{"type":"item.completed","item":{"id":"item_6","type":"command_execution","command":"/bin/bash -lc \"cat CONTRIBUTING.md; printf '\\\\n--- HACKING ---\\\\n'; cat HACKING.pod; printf '\\\\n--- README/docs files ---\\\\n'; rg --files | rg '(\"'^README|''^doc/|''^docs/|''^dev-docs/)'\"'; printf '\\\\n--- entrypoint ---\\\\n'; rg -n 'select|pselect|IO::Select|poll|accept|foreground|while\\\\s*\\\\(' munin-node/lib munin-node 2>/dev/null | head -240\"","aggregated_output":"# Contributing to Munin\n\nFirst off, thanks for taking the time to contribute!\n\nRead on for [more details](http://guide.munin-monitoring.org/en/latest/others/index.html#contributing) in the Guide.\n\n## Submitting Issues\n\n* Include the version of Munin you are using and the OS.\n* Include screenshots whenever possible; they are immensely helpful.\n* Include any relevant logs; the mere act of writing a detailed bug usually gives the answer.\n\n## Pull Requests\n\n* Include screenshots in your pull request if relevant.\n* End files with a newline.\n\n## Git Commit Messages\n\n* Use the present tense (\"Add feature\" not \"Added feature\")\n* Use the imperative mood (\"Move cursor to...\" not \"Moves cursor to...\")\n* Use the standard commit formatting (look at the one already made)\n\n## Coding style\n\n* Refer to [HACKING.pod](HACKING.pod)\n\n--- HACKING ---\n# this is in pod format (try `perldoc HACKING.pod`)\n\n=pod\n\n=head1 NAME\n\nHACKING.pod - contributing to Munin\n\n=head1 SYNOPSIS\n\nThis is the guide for Munin internals contributors (developers,\ntesters, documenters.)\n\nIf you are looking for more information on how to I<use> Munin you\nprobably want L<http://guide.munin-monitoring.org/> instead.\n\nYou can find some additional contributing information at\nL<http://guide.munin-monitoring.org/en/latest/others/index.html#contributing>.\n\nThe Munin code is marked by years on the battle front. You will\ntherefore find code that deviates from the guidelines defined\nhere. However, all new code should be made to comply.\n\n\n=head1 GETTING STARTED\n\n\n=head2 GITHUB\n\nThe main development of Munin is happening on L<https://github.com>. After\nregistering an account you can report feature requests and issues\n(L<https://github.com/munin-monitoring/munin/issues/new/choose>) and create\npull requests (L<https://github.com/munin-monitoring/munin/pulls>).\n\nThere are two interesting branches:\n\n=over\n\n=item I<stable-2.0>\n\nAs the name suggests this is the stable branch for versions (currently 2.0.x).\nPlease base your bug-fix patches (for core and plugins) on this branch.\nThey will get merged by time into master.\n\n=item I<master>\n\nThis is the development branch of munin.\nPlease base your non bug-fix patches, like new features/plugins, rewrites,\ncleanup etc., on this branch.\n\n=back\n\n\n=head2 THE SANDBOX\n\nIn the B<dev_scripts> directory you will find scripts that are meant to be\nuseful for developing. Most of them are tools for creating and using\nMunin in a sandbox.\n\n=over\n\n=item B<install>\n\nTo make a clean rebuild of the sandbox:\n\n  ./dev_scripts/install clean\n  ./dev_scripts/install node\n\nTo just install the latest changes:\n\n  ./dev_scripts/install\n\n=item B<enable/disable tls>\n\nTo test TLS, you can enable a paranoid TLS configuration by running:\n\n  ./dev_scripts/enable_tls\n\nAnd disable it with:\n\n  ./dev_scripts/disable_tls\n\n=item B<start/stop munin-node>\n\n  ./dev_scripts/start_munin-node [munin-node params ...]\n\nAnd\n\n  ./dev_scripts/stop_munin-node\n\nTo do both:\n\n  ./dev_scripts/restart_munin-node [munin-node params ...]\n\n=item B<query_munin_node>\n\nUse this command to query the munin-node directly:\n\n  ./dev_scripts/query_munin_node list\n\n=item B<run>\n\nTo run Munin programs (munin-update, munin-cron, munin-node-configure,\nmunin-run etc.), use this command.\nIt ensures a correct invocation in relation to perl's taint mode.\n\n  ./dev_scripts/run CMD [CMD args ...]\n\n=item B<start munin-httpd>\n\nTo start the Munin http web front-end, run the following:\n\n  ./dev_scripts/start_munin-httpd\n\nThis will start the web server on port 4946.\n\nMake sure to run B<munin-update> at least once before visiting the site.\n\n=back\n\n\n=head1 CODING STYLE\n\n=head2 GENERAL\n\n=over 12\n\n=item C<Strictness and Warnings>\n\nPerl code should be written in tainted-mode with the settings I<use strict;>\nand I<use warnings;>.\n\nThere should be no perl warnings when running Munin.\n\n=item C<Spaces vs Tabs>\n\nIn general we prefer indentation via tabs.\n\nBut due to many space based indentations in the current codebase is it\nsufficient to follow the overall style of the file in question.\n\nWhen a sub-block is started, always use one level.\n\n=item C<Wrapping>\n\nWrapping in code is discouraged. It does not make any sense to force wrap at a\nfixed amount of columns. A much better rule is the following (1 stmt/line).\n\nComments on the other side, are to be wrapped at 78 chars, since they are a\nblock of text anyway. Any space formatting is encouraged, since it usually\nhelps. ASCII art is a must ;-)\n\n=item C<1 stmt/line>\n\nOnly put 1 statement per line. If the expression is complex, break it in\nelementary sub-expressions, with meaningful temporary variables.\n\n=item C<exception handling>\n\nCurrently there is no unified approach to handling exceptions. Use L<Carp>?\n\n  use Carp;\n  croak(\"Foo happened!\");\n\n  confess(\"Foo happened!\"); # With stack trace\n\nExceptions are caught with an eval:\n\n  eval {\n    # Exceptionally scary code\n  };\n  if ($@) {\n    # Handle exception\n  }\n\n=item C<punctuation variables>\n\nDon't use punctuation variables (see Perl Best Practices page 79.). Use the\nEnglish clear names:\n\n  use English qw(-no_match_vars);\n\nWe'll add an exception for $_, $!, $0, $@ and $$ as they should be fairly widely\nrecognised.\n\n=back\n\n\n=head2 PERLTIDY [inactive]\n\nWe use B<perltidy> to automatically format perl code. This ensures a consistent\nstyle and a tool-based enforcement. The exact configuration can be seen in the\nfile I<.perltidyrc>. Please try to use it before any contribution by running\nC<make apply-formatting>.\n\nB<TODO>: discuss perltidy style, see #1014\n\n\n=head2 PERLCRITIC\n\nB<perlcritic> is used to comply to some wide-spread recommendations. The exact\nconfiguration can be seen in the file I<.perlcriticrc>. Please try to comply\nwith those rules by running c<make lint>.\n\nB<TODO>: discuss perlcritc style, see #1051\n\n\n=head2 Commit messages\n\nPlease use the present tense (\"Add feature\" not \"Added feature\"), the\nimperative mood (\"Move cursor to...\" not \"Moves cursor to...\") and some\nstandard commit formatting (look at the one already made).\n\n\n=head1 TESTS AND COVERAGE\n\nUse test-driven development.\n\nIn node, server, or common:\n\n  perl Build.PL\n  ./Build test\n\nMunin uses L<https://travis-ci.org/> to automatically build after each commit.\nMake sure your pull-requests succeeds.\n\n\n=head1 DOCUMENTATION\n\nThe API documentation is embedded as POD in the code.  See L<perlpod>\nfor more on POD.\n\nMore is on L<http://munin-monitoring.org/wiki/Documentation>\n\n\n=head2 WRITING\n\nThe POD should be defined all in one place. For plugins you place it at\nthe top, else at the bottom.\n\nFor scripts the recommend headers are (in this order):\n\n  NAME, SYNOPSIS, DESCRIPTION, REQUIRED ARGUMENTS, OPTIONS, EXIT STATUS,\n  CONFIGURATION, FILES, VERSION, BUGS AND LIMITATIONS, AUTHOR,\n  LICENSE AND COPYRIGHT\n\n  B<TODO>: discuss\n\nFor modules the recommend headers are (in this order):\n\n  NAME, SYNOPSIS, DESCRIPTION, SUBROUTINES/METHODS,\n  CONFIGURATION AND ENVIRONMENT, DEPENDENCIES, BUGS AND LIMITATIONS, AUTHOR,\n  LICENSE AND COPYRIGHT\n\n  B<TODO>: discuss\n\nFor plugins the recommend headers are (in this order):\n\n  NAME, APPLICABLE SYSTEMS, CONFIGURATION, USAGE, MAGIC MARKERS, BUGS, AUTHOR,\n  LICENSE AND COPYRIGHT\n\n  B<TODO>: discuss\n\n\n=head1 END\n\nIf you find any code not matching these recommendations,\nfeel free to contribute a patch.\n\n=cut\n\n--- README/docs files ---\nREADME.build-refactoring\ndoc/preface/index.rst\ndoc/preface/conventions.rst\ndoc/preface/bugreport.rst\ndoc/preface/whatis.rst\ndoc/preface/moreinfo.rst\ndoc/conf.py\ndoc/reference/munin-node-configure.rst\ndoc/reference/munin-limits.rst\ndoc/reference/munin-update.rst\ndoc/reference/munin-get.rst\ndoc/reference/munin-html.rst\ndoc/reference/munin-cron.rst\ndoc/reference/fqn.rst\ndoc/reference/munin-run.rst\ndoc/reference/history.rst\ndoc/reference/index.rst\ndoc/reference/munin-node.conf.rst\ndoc/reference/munin-cgi-graph.rst\ndoc/reference/nomenclature.rst\ndoc/reference/munin-doc.rst\ndoc/reference/munin.conf.rst\ndoc/reference/munin-asyncd.rst\ndoc/reference/munin-async.rst\ndoc/reference/munin-graph.rst\ndoc/reference/graph-category.rst\ndoc/reference/munin.rst\ndoc/reference/munin-httpd.rst\ndoc/reference/plugin.rst\ndoc/reference/munin-check.rst\ndoc/reference/directories.rst\ndoc/reference/munin-cgi-html.rst\ndoc/reference/munin-node.rst\ndoc/tutorial/monitoring-the-unreachable.rst\ndoc/tutorial/extraordinary-usage.rst\ndoc/tutorial/alert.rst\ndoc/tutorial/snmp.rst\ndoc/tutorial/index.rst\ndoc/tutorial/MuninSSHForwarding.png\ndoc/tutorial/Munin-snmp-via-dumbledore.png\ndoc/tutorial/Munin-Architecture.png\ndoc/tutorial/getting-started.rst\ndoc/tutorial/troubleshooting.rst\ndoc/tutorial/wildcard-plugins.rst\ndoc/tutorial/nagios.rst\ndoc/tutorial/advanced-features.rst\ndoc/tutorial/MuninPortForwarding.png\ndoc/others/index.rst\nREADME.OSX\ndoc/Makefile\nREADME.HP-UX\ndoc/installation/prerequisites.rst\ndoc/installation/index.rst\ndoc/installation/webserver.rst\ndoc/installation/configuration.rst\ndoc/installation/install.rst\ndoc/installation/upgrade.rst\ndoc/develop/tests.rst\ndoc/node/async.rst\ndoc/node/index.rst\ndoc/develop/data_structures.rst\ndoc/develop/index.rst\ndoc/develop/environment.rst\ndoc/develop/documenting.rst\ndoc/architecture/protocol.rst\ndoc/architecture/munin-c.rst\ndoc/architecture/index.rst\ndoc/architecture/api.rst\ndoc/architecture/syntax.rst\ndoc/develop/plugins/index.rst\ndoc/develop/plugins/howto-write-plugins.rst\ndoc/develop/plugins/howto-write-snmp-plugins.rst\ndoc/develop/plugins/plugin-gallery.rst\ndoc/example/webserver/apache-cron.rst\ndoc/example/webserver/nginx-cron.rst\ndoc/example/webserver/apache-proxy.rst\ndoc/example/webserver/nginx-proxy.rst\ndoc/example/webserver/lighttpd-proxy.rst\ndoc/example/webserver/apache-cgi.rst\ndoc/example/service/cron/crontab-generic-munin\ndoc/example/service/linux/systemd/munin-httpd.service\ndoc/example/service/linux/systemd/munin-node.service\ndoc/develop/plugins/plugin-concise.rst\ndoc/develop/plugins/advanced-topics.rst\ndoc/develop/plugins/plugin-bcp.rst\ndoc/develop/plugins/requirements-vetted.rst\ndoc/index.rst\ndoc/example/tips/multimaster.rst\ndoc/howtos/index.rst\ndoc/howtos/remove-spikes.rst\ndoc/plugin/env.rst\ndoc/plugin/multigraphing.rst\ndoc/plugin/snmp.rst\ndoc/plugin/writing.rst\ndoc/plugin/index.rst\ndoc/plugin/supersampling.rst\ndoc/plugin/protocol-multigraph.rst\ndoc/plugin/use.rst\ndoc/plugin/protocol-dirtyconfig.rst\ndoc/master/rrdcached.rst\ndoc/master/network-protocol.rst\ndoc/master/index.rst\ndoc/master/rrdcached_effects.png\ndoc/advanced/index.rst\ndoc/advanced/tls-setup.rst\ndoc/advanced/custom-rrd-sizing.rst\ndoc/advanced/network.rst\ndoc/example/service/linux/cron/munin-node\ndoc/example/service/linux/cron/munin\ndoc/example/service/linux/upstart/munin-node.conf\ndoc/example/service/service.rst\ndoc/example/transport/ssh.rst\ndoc/example/index.rst\ndoc/example/service/solaris/munin-node\ndoc/example/service/solaris/munin-node.xml\ndoc/example/service/hpux/munin-node.rc\ndoc/example/service/hpux/munin-node.init\ndoc/example/rrdcached/systemd.rst\ndoc/example/rrdcached/upstart.rst\nREADME.rst\ndoc/example/graph/graph_args.rst\ndoc/example/graph/percent-graph.rst\ndoc/example/graph/aggregated-stack.rst\ndoc/example/graph/stack/total_mailstats-year.png\ndoc/example/graph/stack/postfix_mailstats-year.png\ndoc/develop/plugins/graphs/if_eth0-week.png\ndoc/develop/plugins/graphs/localhost.localdomain-load-day.png\ndoc/example/graph/percent/donald.hjemme.ruberg.no-conntrack_percent-day.png\ndoc/example/graph/percent/donald.hjemme.ruberg.no-fw_conntrack-day.png\ndoc/example/graph/aggregate.rst\ndoc/example/graph/aggregation-combined.rst\ndoc/example/graph/aggregate/aggregate_power.png\ndoc/example/graph/aggregate/temperatures-day.png\ndoc/example/graph/aggregate/aggregate_current.png\ndoc/example/graph/aggregate/ups-5a_power.png\ndoc/example/graph/aggregate/ups-5a_current.png\n\n--- entrypoint ---\n","exit_code":0,"status":"completed"}}
{"type":"item.started","item":{"id":"item_7","type":"command_execution","command":"/bin/bash -lc \"sed -n '1,260p' Makefile; printf '\\\\n--- root listing ---\\\\n'; rg --files | head -100; printf '\\\\n--- node references ---\\\\n'; rg -n 'Munin::Node|munin-node|IO::Select|select\\\\('\"","aggregated_output":"","exit_code":null,"status":"in_progress"}}
{"type":"item.completed","item":{"id":"item_7","type":"command_execution","command":"/bin/bash -lc \"sed -n '1,260p' Makefile; printf '\\\\n--- root listing ---\\\\n'; rg --files | head -100; printf '\\\\n--- node references ---\\\\n'; rg -n 'Munin::Node|munin-node|IO::Select|select\\\\('\"","aggregated_output":"\n# This Makefile provides convenience targets for common build/test/install cases, as well as rules\n# for the release manager.\n\n# In the interest of keeping this Makefile simple, it does not attempt to provide the flexibility\n# provided by using Build.PL directly. (See perldoc Module::Build).\n\n# Defaults/paths. Allows $(CONFIG) to be overridden by\n# make command line\nDEFAULTS = Makefile.config\nCONFIG = Makefile.config\n\nPYTHON_LINT_CALL ?= python3 -m flake8\n\ninclude $(DEFAULTS)\nifneq ($(DEFAULTS),$(CONFIG))\n    include $(CONFIG)\nendif\n\n# the perl script is used for most perl related activities\nBUILD_SCRIPT = ./Build\n\n\n.PHONY: default\ndefault: build\n\n.PHONY: help\nhelp:\n\t@echo \"Build targets:\"\n\t@echo \"    build\"\n\t@echo \"    clean\"\n\t@echo \"    doc\"\n\t@echo \"    install\"\n\t@echo \"    tar\"\n\t@echo\n\t@echo \"Test targets:\"\n\t@echo \"    lint\"\n\t@echo \"    test\"\n\t@echo \"    testcover\"\n\t@echo \"    testpod\"\n\t@echo \"    testpodcoverage\"\n\t@echo\n\n.PHONY: build\nbuild: $(BUILD_SCRIPT)\n\t$(BUILD_SCRIPT)\n\n.PHONY: doc\ndoc:\n\t$(MAKE) -C doc html\n\n.PHONY: install\ninstall: $(BUILD_SCRIPT)\n\t\"$(BUILD_SCRIPT)\" install --destdir=\"$(DESTDIR)\" --verbose\n\t@# various directory placeholders (e.g. \"@@SPOOLDIR@@\") need to be replaced\n\tgrep -rl --null \"@@\" \"$(or $(DESTDIR),.)\" | xargs -0 sed -i \\\n\t\t-e \"$$(perl -I lib -M\"Munin::Common::Defaults\" \\\n\t\t\t-e \"Munin::Common::Defaults->print_as_sed_substitutions();\")\"\n\n.PHONY: apply-formatting\napply-formatting:\n\t# Format munin perl files with the recommend perltidy settings\n\t# This is recommend, but NOT mandatory\n\t@# select all scipts except munin-check\n\tperltidy script/munin-async script/munin-asyncd script/munin-cron.PL script/munin-doc script/munin-httpd script/munin-limits script/munin-node script/munin-node-configure script/munin-run script/munin-update\n\t@# format munin libraries\n\tfind lib/ -type f -exec perltidy {} \\;\n\n.PHONY: lint lint-munin lint-plugins lint-spelling lint-whitespace\n\nlint: lint-munin lint-plugins lint-spelling lint-whitespace\n\nlint-munin: build\n\t# Scanning munin code\n\tperlcritic --profile .perlcriticrc lib/ script/\n\tshellcheck --shell dash getversion script/munin-get script/munin-cron\n\nlint-plugins:\n\t@# SC1008: ignore our weird shebang (substituted later)\n\t@# SC1090: ignore sourcing of files with variable in path\n\t@# SC2009: do not complain about \"ps ... | grep\" calls (may be platform specific)\n\t@# SC2126: tolerate \"grep | wc -l\" (simple and widespread) instead of \"grep -c\"\n\t# TODO: fix the remaining shellcheck issues for the missing platforms:\n\t#       aix, darwin, netbsd, sunos\n\t#       (these require tests with their specific shell implementations)\n\tfind plugins/node.d/ \\\n\t\t\tplugins/node.d.cygwin/ \\\n\t\t\tplugins/node.d.debug/ \\\n\t\t\tplugins/node.d.linux/ -type f -print0 \\\n\t\t| xargs -0 grep -l --null '^#!.*/bin/sh' \\\n\t\t\t| xargs -0 shellcheck --exclude=SC1008,SC1090,SC2009,SC2126 --shell dash\n\tfind plugins/ -type f -print0 \\\n\t\t| xargs -0 grep -l --null \"^#!.*/bin/bash\" \\\n\t\t\t| xargs -0 shellcheck --exclude=SC1008,SC1090,SC2009,SC2126 --shell bash\n\tfind plugins/ -type f -print0 \\\n\t\t| xargs -0 grep -l --null \"^#!.*python\" \\\n\t\t\t| xargs -0 $(PYTHON_LINT_CALL)\n\t# TODO: perl plugins currently fail with perlcritic\n\t# verify that no multigraph plugin lacks a check for the node's capability\n\t# Three capability checks are detected:\n\t#     * perl: need__multigraph();\n\t#     * shell: is_multigraph\n\t#     * perl with \"Munin::Plugin::Framework\": we assume the framework takes care for it\n\t#     * manual: evaluate environment variable MUNIN_CAP_MULTIGRAPH\n\t# Some files are excluded from the test:\n\t#     * plugins/node.d.debug/*: these plugins are used only for testing\n\t#     * AbstractMultiGraphsProvider.java: this is not a plugin\n\tplugins_without_multigraph_check=$$(grep -rlwZ \"multigraph\" plugins/ \\\n\t\t| xargs -r -0 grep -LwE '((need|is)_multigraph|Munin::Plugin::Framework|MUNIN_CAP_MULTIGRAPH)' \\\n\t\t| grep -vE 'plugins/(node\\.d\\.debug/|.*/AbstractMultiGraphsProvider\\.java)'); \\\n\t\tif [ -n \"$$plugins_without_multigraph_check\" ]; then \\\n\t\t\techo '[ERROR] Some plugins lack a \"multigraph\" check (e.g. \"needs_multigraph();\" or \"is_multigraph\"):'; \\\n\t\t\techo \"$$plugins_without_multigraph_check\" | sed 's/^/\\t/'; false; fi >&2\n\nlint-spelling: CODESPELL_ARGS += --exclude-file=.codespell.exclude\n# codespell introduced \"--ignore-words\" in v1.14 (Debian Buster)\nlint-spelling: CODESPELL_ARGS += $(shell if codespell --help | grep -q \" --ignore-words \"; then echo \"--ignore-words=.codespell.ignore-words\"; fi)\nlint-spelling:\n\t# codespell misdetections may be ignored by adding the full line of text to the file .codespell.exclude\n\tfind . -type f -print0 \\\n\t\t| grep --null-data -vE '^\\./(\\.git|\\.pc|doc/_build|blib|.*/blib|build|sandbox|web/static/js|contrib/plugin-gallery/www/static/js)/' \\\n\t\t| grep --null-data -vE '\\.(svg|png|gif|ico|css|woff|woff2|ttf|eot|pem)$$' \\\n\t\t| xargs -0 -r codespell $(CODESPELL_ARGS)\n\nlint-whitespace: FILES_WITH_TRAILING_WHITESPACE = $(shell grep -r -l --binary-files=without-match \\\n\t\t\t\t--exclude-dir=.git --exclude-dir=sandbox '\\s$$' . \\\n\t\t\t| grep -vE '/(blib|build|_build|web/static)/' \\\n\t\t\t| grep -vE '/logo\\.eps$$')\n\nlint-whitespace:\n\t@if [ -n \"$(FILES_WITH_TRAILING_WHITESPACE)\" ]; then \\\n\t\techo 'Files containing trailing whitespace or non-native line endings:'; \\\n\t\tprintf '\\t%s\\n' $(FILES_WITH_TRAILING_WHITESPACE); \\\n\t\tfalse; fi 2>&1\n\n\n.PHONY: clean\nclean: $(BUILD_SCRIPT)\n\t\"$(BUILD_SCRIPT)\" realclean\n\trm -rf _stage\n\trm -f MANIFEST META.json META.yml\n\t$(MAKE) -C doc clean\n\n\n##############################\n# perl module\n\n$(BUILD_SCRIPT): Build.PL\n\t$(PERL) Build.PL --destdir=\"$(DESTDIR)\" --installdirs=\"$(INSTALLDIRS)\" --verbose\n\n\n######################################################################\n# testing\n\nTEST_FILES_ARG = $(addprefix --test_files , $(TEST_FILES))\n\n.PHONY: test\ntest: $(BUILD_SCRIPT)\n\t\"$(BUILD_SCRIPT)\" test $(TEST_FILES_ARG)\n\n.PHONY: testcover\ntestcover: $(BUILD_SCRIPT)\n\t\"$(BUILD_SCRIPT)\" testcover $(TEST_FILES_ARG)\n\n.PHONY: testpod\ntestpod: $(BUILD_SCRIPT)\n\t\"$(BUILD_SCRIPT)\" testpod $(TEST_FILES_ARG)\n\n.PHONY: testpodcoverage\ntestpodcoverage: $(BUILD_SCRIPT)\n\t\"$(BUILD_SCRIPT)\" testpodcoverage $(TEST_FILES_ARG)\n\n\n######################################################################\n# Rules for the release manager\n\nRELEASE := $(shell $(CURDIR)/getversion)\n\n.PHONY: tar\ntar: munin-$(RELEASE).tar.gz.sha256sum\n\n.PHONY: tar-signed\ntar-signed: munin-$(RELEASE).tar.gz.asc\n\nmunin-$(RELEASE).tar.gz:\n\t@# prevent the RELEASE file from misleading the \"getversion\" script\n\trm -f RELEASE\n\ttempdir=$$(mktemp -d) \\\n\t\t&& mkdir -p \"$$tempdir/munin-$(RELEASE)/\" \\\n\t\t&& echo $(RELEASE) > \"$$tempdir/munin-$(RELEASE)/RELEASE\" \\\n\t\t&& git archive --prefix=munin-$(RELEASE)/ --format=tar --output \"$$tempdir/export.tar\" HEAD \\\n\t\t&& tar --append --file \"$$tempdir/export.tar\" --owner=root --group=root -C \"$$tempdir\" \"munin-$(RELEASE)/RELEASE\" \\\n\t\t&& gzip -9 <\"$$tempdir/export.tar\" >\"munin-$(RELEASE).tar.gz\" \\\n\t\t&& rm -rf \"$$tempdir\"\n\nmunin-$(RELEASE).tar.gz.sha256sum: munin-$(RELEASE).tar.gz\n\tsha256sum \"$<\" >\"$@\"\n\nmunin-$(RELEASE).tar.gz.asc: munin-$(RELEASE).tar.gz\n\tgpg --armor --detach-sign --sign \"$<\"\n\n.PHONY: tar-upload\ntar-upload: tar tar-signed\n\t@if [ -z \"$(UPLOAD_DIR)\" ]; then echo \"You need to set UPLOAD_DIR (e.g. '/srv/www/downloads.munin-monitoring.org/munin/stable')\" >&2; false; fi\n\t@if [ -z \"$(UPLOAD_HOST)\" ]; then echo \"You need to set UPLOAD_HOST\" >&2; false; fi\n\t{ \\\n\t\techo \"mkdir $(UPLOAD_DIR)/$(VERSION)\"; \\\n\t\techo \"put munin-$(VERSION).tar.gz* $(UPLOAD_DIR)/$(VERSION)/\"; \\\n\t} | sftp -b - \"$(UPLOAD_HOST)\"\n\n.PHONY: docker\ndocker-base:\n\tdocker build -t munin:base -f Dockerfile.base .\ndocker: docker-base\n\t./getversion > RELEASE.docker\n\tdocker build -t munin:latest .\n\tdocker rm -f munin || true\n\t# Add the following to enable strace in the container\n\t# --security-opt seccomp:unconfined\n\tdocker run --name munin --shm-size=256M -p 4948:4948 -itd munin:latest dev_scripts/noop\n\ndocker-connect:\n\tdocker exec -it munin bash\n\ndocker-dev: docker-base\n\tdocker build -t munin:dev -f Dockerfile.dev .\n\tdocker run --rm --name munin-dev -v $(shell pwd):/munin -p 8000:8000 -p 14947:4947 -p 14948:4948 -it munin:dev\n\n--- root listing ---\nCONTRIBUTING.md\nREADME.build-refactoring\netc/munin.conf.PL\netc/munin-node.conf.PL\ndoc/preface/index.rst\ndoc/preface/conventions.rst\ndoc/preface/bugreport.rst\ndoc/preface/whatis.rst\ndoc/preface/moreinfo.rst\ndoc/conf.py\ndev_scripts/all\ndev_scripts/stop_munin-sched\ndev_scripts/enable_tls\ndev_scripts/deps\ndoc/reference/munin-node-configure.rst\ndev_scripts/common.sh\ndoc/reference/munin-limits.rst\ndev_scripts/run_debug_node\ndev_scripts/start_munin-sched\ndev_scripts/stop_munin-node\ndev_scripts/install\ndoc/reference/munin-update.rst\ndev_scripts/start_munin-node\ndev_scripts/disable_rrdcached\ndev_scripts/plugin\ndoc/reference/munin-get.rst\ndev_scripts/restart_munin-node\ndoc/reference/munin-html.rst\ndev_scripts/enable_rrdcached\ndoc/reference/munin-cron.rst\ndoc/reference/fqn.rst\ndoc/reference/munin-run.rst\ndoc/reference/history.rst\ndoc/reference/index.rst\ndoc/reference/munin-node.conf.rst\ndoc/reference/munin-cgi-graph.rst\ndoc/reference/nomenclature.rst\ndoc/reference/munin-doc.rst\ndev_scripts/disable_tls\ndoc/reference/munin.conf.rst\ndoc/reference/munin-asyncd.rst\ndoc/reference/munin-async.rst\ndoc/reference/munin-graph.rst\ndoc/reference/graph-category.rst\ndev_scripts/noop\ndoc/reference/munin.rst\ndev_scripts/start_munin-httpd\ndoc/reference/munin-httpd.rst\ndev_scripts/run\ndoc/reference/plugin.rst\ndev_scripts/dump_sql\ndoc/reference/munin-check.rst\ndev_scripts/query_munin_node\ndoc/reference/directories.rst\ndev_scripts/nested-munin.conf.sample\ndoc/reference/munin-cgi-html.rst\ndev_scripts/disable_taint\ndoc/reference/munin-node.rst\ndev_scripts/start_rrdcached\nDockerfile.base\nREADME.HP-UX\nMANIFEST.SKIP\nChangeLog\ncontrib/export-palette-to-svg\ncontrib/epoch2localtime\ncontrib/rrdcopy\ncontrib/plugin-gallery/INSTALL\ncontrib/plugin-gallery/COPYING\ncontrib/plugin-gallery/well-known-categories.incl\ncontrib/plugin-gallery/www/static/css/style.scss\ncontrib/plugin-gallery/www/static/css/style-doc.css\ncontrib/plugin-gallery/www/static/css/_responsive.scss\ncontrib/plugin-gallery/www/static/css/style.css\ncontrib/plugin-gallery/www/static/css/style-doc.scss\ncontrib/plugin-gallery/www/static/js/jquery-1.12.4.js\ncontrib/plugin-gallery/www/static/js/script.js\ncontrib/plugin-gallery/www/static/img/download.gif\ncontrib/plugin-gallery/www/static/img/glyphicons-390-new-window-alt-white.png\ncontrib/plugin-gallery/www/static/img/logo-h-neg.svg\ncontrib/plugin-gallery/www/static/img/glyphicons-208-remove-2-white.png\ncontrib/plugin-gallery/www/static/img/logo-h-neg.png\ncontrib/plugin-gallery/www/static/img/favicon.ico\ncontrib/plugin-gallery/print-gallery.awk\ncontrib/plugin-gallery/static/gallery-cat-footer.html\ncontrib/plugin-gallery/static/leer.pod\ncontrib/plugin-gallery/static/gallery-header.html\ncontrib/plugin-gallery/static/gallery-intro.html\ncontrib/plugin-gallery/static/gallery-intro-contrib.html\ncontrib/plugin-gallery/static/gallery-cat-header.html\ncontrib/plugin-gallery/static/leer.html\ncontrib/plugin-gallery/static/gallery-footer.html\ncontrib/plugin-gallery/include-graphs.awk\ncontrib/plugin-gallery/grep-files.excl\ncontrib/plugin-gallery/gallery-build.sh\ncontrib/plugin-gallery/split-greplist.awk\ncontrib/percentile\ncontrib/install_rrd.sh\ncontrib/dump_storable\ncontrib/drop.sql\ncontrib/perf/rrd_perf.pl\n\n--- node references ---\nlib/Munin.pm.PL:68:our \\$munin_node_conf = '/etc/munin/munin-node.conf';\nweb/static/css/style.scss:437:\t\t@include user-select(none);\netc/munin-node.conf.PL:8:my $log_file = $build->install_path('MUNIN_LOGDIR') . '/munin-node.log';\netc/munin-node.conf.PL:9:my $pid_file = $build->install_path('MUNIN_RUNDIR') . '/munin-node.pid';\netc/munin-node.conf.PL:17:# Example config-file for munin-node\nlib/Munin/Plugin.pm:46:      env.MUNIN_PLUGSTATE /var/lib/munin-node/plugin-state\nlib/Munin/Plugin.pm:107:You are running the plugin directly and not from munin-node or munin-run;\nlib/Munin/Plugin.pm:110:Your munin-node is too old;\nlib/Munin/Plugin.pm:113:munin-node was installed incorrectly.\nlib/Munin/Plugin.pm:128:name is supplied by munin-node or munin-run (in the MUNIN_STATEFILE\nlib/Munin/Plugin.pm:299:also be printed, which will appear in the munin-node logs).\nlib/Munin/Plugin.pm:419:in the munin-node log or seen in the terminal when using munin-run).\nlib/Munin/Plugin.pm:509:found in the munin-node log or seen when using munin-run).\nlib/Munin/Plugin.pm:623:\t# that munin-node-configure may also be detected as \"command\nlib/Munin/Plugin.pm:654:        print \"multigraph.info This plugin has been installed in a munin-node \"\nlib/Munin/Plugin.pm:670:  MUNIN_PLUGSTATE=/var/lib/munin-node/plugin-state -e 'require \"Plugin.pm.in\"; Munin::Plugin::_test;' -- or something.\nlib/Munin/Node/SNMPConfig.pm:1:package Munin::Node::SNMPConfig;\nlib/Munin/Node/SNMPConfig.pm:8:use Munin::Node::Configure::HostEnumeration;\nlib/Munin/Node/SNMPConfig.pm:9:use Munin::Node::Configure::Debug;\nlib/Munin/Node/SNMPConfig.pm:261:Munin::Node::SNMPConfig - Subroutines providing munin-node-configure's SNMP\nlib/Munin/Node/SNMPConfig.pm:267:  my $snmp = Munin::Node::SNMPConfig->new(\nlib/Munin/Node/SNMPConfig.pm:286:L<Munin::Node::Configure::HostEnumeration>.  Required.\nlib/Munin/Node/SNMPConfig.pm:349:$plugins should be a Munin::Node::Configure::PluginList object.\nscript/munin-update:129:munin-update - A program to gather data from machines running munin-node\nscript/munin-update:207:It contacts each host's munin-node in turn, gathers data from it, and\nlib/Munin/Node/Session.pm:1:package Munin::Node::Session;\nlib/Munin/Node/Session.pm:27:Munin::Node::Session - Stores the state for the session between a node\nlib/Munin/Node/Session.pm:33: $session = Munin::Node::Session->new();\nscript/munin-node:32:use Munin::Node::Config;\nscript/munin-node:33:use Munin::Node::OS;\nscript/munin-node:34:use Munin::Node::Service;\nscript/munin-node:35:use Munin::Node::Server;\nscript/munin-node:41:my $conffile = \"$Munin::Common::Defaults::MUNIN_CONFDIR/munin-node.conf\";\nscript/munin-node:62:    my $config = Munin::Node::Config->instance();\nscript/munin-node:67:    my $services = Munin::Node::Service->new(\nscript/munin-node:89:        syslog_ident => 'munin-node',\nscript/munin-node:97:    #       munin-node may not daemonize on its own.\nscript/munin-node:102:    Munin::Node::Server->run(%server_params);\nscript/munin-node:164:munin-node - A daemon to gather information in cooperation with the main\nscript/munin-node:169:munin-node [--options]\nscript/munin-node:173:munin-node is a daemon for reporting statistics on system performance.\nscript/munin-node:187:Use E<lt>fileE<gt> as configuration file. [@@CONFDIR@@/munin-node.conf]\nscript/munin-node:222:    @@CONFDIR@@/munin-node.conf\nscript/munin-node:225:    @@STATEDIR@@/munin-node.pid\nscript/munin-node:226:    @@LOGDIR@@/munin-node.log\nscript/munin-node:230:This is munin-node v@@VERSION@@\nscript/munin-node:254:F<munin-node.conf>.\nscript/munin-node:257:node.  C<munin-node-configure> can use this information to help manage\nlib/Munin/Node/SpoolWriter.pm:1:package Munin::Node::SpoolWriter;\nlib/Munin/Node/SpoolWriter.pm:171:Munin::Node::SpoolWriter - Writing side of the spool functionality\nlib/Munin/Node/SpoolWriter.pm:175:  my $spool = Munin::Node::SpoolWriter->new(spooldir => $spooldir);\nlib/Munin/Node/SpoolWriter.pm:185:L<Munin::Node::SpoolReader> is reading from.\nlib/Munin/Node/SpoolWriter.pm:190:it.  Writes it to the spool directory for L<Munin::Node::SpoolReader> to read.\nweb/static/css/_header.scss:129:\t\t@include user-select(none);\nweb/static/css/_base.scss:123:\t@include user-select(none);\nscript/munin-run:14:use Munin::Node::Config;\nscript/munin-run:15:use Munin::Node::OS;\nscript/munin-run:16:use Munin::Node::Service;\nscript/munin-run:20:my $conffile = \"$Munin::Common::Defaults::MUNIN_CONFDIR/munin-node.conf\";\nscript/munin-run:38:# \"munin-node.service\" if systemd is enabled.\nscript/munin-run:106:my $config = Munin::Node::Config->instance();\nscript/munin-run:113:    # Loads the settings from munin-node.conf.\nscript/munin-run:118:    my $config = Munin::Node::Config->instance();\nscript/munin-run:143:                # Failed to retrieve systemd properties of munin-node service.\nscript/munin-run:159:# Retrieve the locally configured hardening flags for the \"munin-node\" systemd\nscript/munin-run:165:    my @munin_service_properties = grep !/^Limit\\w+Soft=/, `systemctl show munin-node 2>/dev/null`;\nscript/munin-run:209:# This allows to apply the hardening properties defined in \"munin-node.service\".\nscript/munin-run:211:# munin-node service itself.  This is less surprising for users.\nscript/munin-run:235:    # problems, if \"munin-node.service\" specifies \"Environment\" properties,\nscript/munin-run:238:    # in \"munin-node.service\".  There does not seem to be a clean generic\nscript/munin-run:246:    # enable the hardening flags of the munin-node service\nscript/munin-run:263:                      . \"properties based on 'munin-node.service'.\\n\");\nscript/munin-run:297:    $services = Munin::Node::Service->new(\nscript/munin-run:415:as they are under munin-node.\nscript/munin-run:423:Use E<lt>fileE<gt> as configuration file. [@@CONFDIR@@/munin-node.conf]\nscript/munin-run:444:\"munin-node\" service unit. This detection is skipped, if systemd is not enabled.\nscript/munin-run:472:The \"munin-node\" service is usually started by systemd via a\nscript/munin-run:473:\"munin-node.service\" definition.  Some distributions enable hardening\nscript/munin-run:475:activities for the \"munin-node\" process.\nscript/munin-run:477:and the real \"munin-node\" service.\nscript/munin-run:483:\"munin-run\" tries to mimic this behavior of \"munin-node\" automatically.\nscript/munin-run:490:locally via \"systemctl edit munin-node\".\nscript/munin-run:495:    @@CONFDIR@@/munin-node.conf\nscript/munin-run:498:    @@STATEDIR@@/munin-node.pid\nscript/munin-run:499:    @@LOGDIR@@/munin-node.log\nscript/munin-run:503:This is munin-run (munin-node) v@@VERSION@@\nlib/Munin/Node/Config.pm:1:package Munin::Node::Config;\nlib/Munin/Node/Config.pm:10:use Munin::Node::OS;\nlib/Munin/Node/Config.pm:27:            config_file  => \"$Munin::Common::Defaults::MUNIN_CONFDIR/munin-node.conf\",\nlib/Munin/Node/Config.pm:51:    unless (Munin::Node::OS->check_perms_if_paranoid($file)) {\nlib/Munin/Node/Config.pm:115:        my $uid = Munin::Node::OS->get_uid($var_value);\nlib/Munin/Node/Config.pm:122:        my $gid = Munin::Node::OS->get_gid($var_value);\nlib/Munin/Node/Config.pm:186:    if (!Munin::Node::OS->check_perms_if_paranoid($file)) {\nlib/Munin/Node/Config.pm:362:Munin::Node::Config - Singleton node configuration container. Reads\nlib/Munin/Node/Config.pm:368: $config = Munin::Node::Config->instance();\nlib/Munin/Node/Config.pm:369: $config->parse_config_from_file('/etc/munin/munin-node.conf');\nlib/Munin/Node/Config.pm:378: $config = Munin::Node::Config->instance();\nplugins/node.d.debug/tc:23:Link this plugin to /etc/munin/plugins/ and restart the munin-node.\nscript/munin-async:29:use Munin::Node::SpoolReader;\nscript/munin-async:30:use Munin::Node::SpoolWriter;\nscript/munin-async:92:# 1. secure over internet (SSH), munin-node needs only\nscript/munin-async:96:my $spoolreader = Munin::Node::SpoolReader->new(\nscript/munin-async:136:\tmy $spoolwriter = Munin::Node::SpoolWriter->new(\nscript/munin-async:146:munin-async - A program to replay spooled munin-node calls\nlib/Munin/Node/Utils.pm:1:package Munin::Node::Utils;\nlib/Munin/Node/Utils.pm:45:Munin::Node::Utils - Various utility functions\nlib/Munin/Node/Utils.pm:50:  use Munin::Node::Utils qw( ... );\nMakefile:65:\tperltidy script/munin-async script/munin-asyncd script/munin-cron.PL script/munin-doc script/munin-httpd script/munin-limits script/munin-node script/munin-node-configure script/munin-run script/munin-update\nlib/Munin/Node/Configure/History.pm:1:package Munin::Node::Configure::History;\nlib/Munin/Node/Configure/History.pm:10:use Munin::Node::Configure::Debug;\nlib/Munin/Node/Configure/History.pm:105:Munin::Node::Configure::History - Filtering plugins based on the version of\nlib/Munin/Node/Configure/History.pm:111:  my $plugin = Munin::Node::Configure::History->new(\nlib/Munin/Node/Configure/History.pm:138:Takes a Munin::Node::Configure::Plugin object.  Returns false unless the\nscript/munin-node-configure:24:use Munin::Node::Configure::PluginList;\nscript/munin-node-configure:25:use Munin::Node::Configure::Debug;\nscript/munin-node-configure:29:use Munin::Node::Config;\nscript/munin-node-configure:30:my $config = Munin::Node::Config->instance();\nscript/munin-node-configure:80:\tmy $conffile   = \"$Munin::Common::Defaults::MUNIN_CONFDIR/munin-node.conf\";\nscript/munin-node-configure:159:    my $plugins = Munin::Node::Configure::PluginList->new(\nscript/munin-node-configure:323:    unless (eval { require Munin::Node::SNMPConfig; }) {\nscript/munin-node-configure:324:        die \"# ERROR: Cannot perform SNMP probing as Munin::Node::SNMPConfig module is not available.\\n\",\nscript/munin-node-configure:327:    return Munin::Node::SNMPConfig->new(@_);\nscript/munin-node-configure:463:munin-node-configure - View and modify which plugins are enabled.\nscript/munin-node-configure:467:  munin-node-configure [options]\nscript/munin-node-configure:471:B<munin-node-configure> reports which plugins are enabled on the current node,\nscript/munin-node-configure:505:Print debug information on the operations of C<munin-node-configure>.  This can\nscript/munin-node-configure:518:Override configuration file [@@CONFDIR@@/munin-node.conf]\nscript/munin-node-configure:542:By default, C<munin-node-configure> will print out a table summarising the\nscript/munin-node-configure:668:munin-node-configure also supports '3des' (CBC-3DES-EDE, aka Triple-DES, NIST\nscript/munin-node-configure:676:    @@CONFDIR@@/munin-node.conf\nscript/munin-node-configure:684:This is munin-node-configure (munin-node) v@@VERSION@@.\ndoc/conf.py:279:    ('reference/munin-node',\ndoc/conf.py:280:     'munin-node',\ndoc/conf.py:297:     'A program to gather data from machines running munin-node or munin-async',\ndoc/conf.py:311:    ('reference/munin-node.conf',\ndoc/conf.py:312:     'munin-node.conf',\ndoc/conf.py:326:    ('reference/munin-node-configure',\ndoc/conf.py:327:     'munin-node-configure',\ndebian/munin-node.postrm:16:    rm -rf /var/lib/munin-node/plugin-state\ndebian/munin-node.postrm:17:    rm -f /var/log/munin-node/munin-node.log*\ndebian/munin-node.postrm:18:    rm -f /var/log/munin-node/munin-node-configure.log*\ndebian/munin-node.postrm:20:    delete_dir_if_empty /var/lib/munin-node\ndebian/munin-node.postrm:21:    delete_dir_if_empty /var/log/munin-node\nlib/Munin/Node/Configure/Plugin.pm:1:package Munin::Node::Configure::Plugin;\nlib/Munin/Node/Configure/Plugin.pm:7:use Munin::Node::Utils qw(set_intersection set_difference);\nlib/Munin/Node/Configure/Plugin.pm:8:use Munin::Node::Configure::Debug;\nlib/Munin/Node/Configure/Plugin.pm:365:Munin::Node::Configure::Plugin - Class representing a plugin, along with its\nlib/Munin/Node/Configure/Plugin.pm:371:  my $plugin = Munin::Node::Configure::Plugin->new();\nscript/munin-asyncd:33:use Munin::Node::SpoolWriter;\nscript/munin-asyncd:105:\tprint STDERR \"[$$][$process_name] Failed to connect to munin-node - trying again in a few seconds ...\\n\" if $verbose;\nscript/munin-asyncd:139:\t$spoolwriter{$node} = Munin::Node::SpoolWriter->new(\nscript/munin-asyncd:211:\t# start the next run close to the end of a munin-node update operation\nscript/munin-asyncd:389:munin-asyncd - A program to spool munin-node calls\nscript/munin-asyncd:396:        --host <hostname:port>  Connect to this munin-node [localhost:4949]\nweb/static/css/_mixins.scss:20:@mixin user-select($value) {\nlib/Munin/Node/Configure/HostEnumeration.pm:1:package Munin::Node::Configure::HostEnumeration;\nlib/Munin/Node/Configure/HostEnumeration.pm:9:use Munin::Node::Configure::Debug;\nlib/Munin/Node/Configure/HostEnumeration.pm:97:Munin::Node::Configure::HostEnumeration - Takes a list of hosts, and returns\nt/munin_master_update_spoolfetch.t:16:\texec(\"contrib/munin-node-debug\", \"--spoolfetch\", \"--starting-epoch\", (time - 600));\nt/lib/Munin/Node/Session/Tests.pm:1:package Munin::Node::Session::Tests;\nt/lib/Munin/Node/Session/Tests.pm:6:use Munin::Node::Session;\nt/lib/Munin/Node/Session/Tests.pm:11:    $self->{session} = Munin::Node::Session->new();\nt/lib/Munin/Node/Session/Tests.pm:22:            isa('Munin::Node::Session'),\ndoc/reference/munin-node-configure.rst:1:.. _munin-node-configure:\ndoc/reference/munin-node-configure.rst:5: munin-node-configure\ndoc/reference/munin-node-configure.rst:11:munin-node-configure [options]\ndoc/reference/munin-node-configure.rst:16:munin-node-configure reports which plugins are enabled on the current node, and suggest changes to\ndoc/reference/munin-node-configure.rst:46:   Print debug information on the operations of \"munin-node-configure\". This can be very verbose.\ndoc/reference/munin-node-configure.rst:58:   Override configuration file [/etc/munin/munin-node.conf]\ndoc/reference/munin-node-configure.rst:83:By default, \"munin-node-configure\" will print out a table summarising the results.\ndoc/reference/munin-node-configure.rst:195:   munin-node-configure also supports '3des' (CBC-3DES-EDE, aka Triple-DES, NIST FIPS 46-3) as\ndoc/reference/munin-node-configure.rst:202:* /etc/munin/munin-node.conf\ndebian/control:55:Package: munin-node\ndebian/control:60: libmunin-node-perl,\ndebian/control:116: The munin-node daemon provides access to the plugin to local or remote\ndebian/control:146: The munin-node daemon provides access to the plugin to local or remote\ndebian/control:161: The munin-node daemon provides access to the plugin to local or remote\ndebian/control:179: The munin-node daemon provides access to the plugin to local or remote\ndebian/control:198: The munin-node daemon provides access to the plugin to local or remote\ndebian/control:212: The munin-node daemon provides access to the plugin to local or remote\ndebian/control:227: The munin-node daemon provides access to the plugin to local or remote\ndebian/control:241: The munin-node daemon provides access to the plugin to local or remote\ndebian/control:254: The munin-node daemon provides access to the plugin to local or remote\ndebian/control:266: The munin-node daemon provides access to the plugin to local or remote\ndebian/control:279: The munin-node daemon provides access to the plugin to local or remote\ndebian/control:291: The munin-node daemon provides access to the plugin to local or remote\ndebian/control:305: The munin-node daemon provides access to the plugin to local or remote\ndebian/control:317: The munin-node daemon provides access to the plugin to local or remote\ndebian/control:360:Package: libmunin-node-perl\ndebian/control:364:Replaces: munin-node (<< 2.999.1-1~),\ndebian/control:366:Breaks: munin-node (<< 2.999.1-1~),\ndebian/control:368:Description: perl module Munin::Node\ndebian/control:374: The Munin::Node perl module, used by munin-node.\ndebian/control:477:Recommends: munin-node, munin-doc\ndebian/control:516: munin and munin-node.\ndebian/control:523: munin-node\nt/munin_master_update.t:16:\texec(\"contrib/munin-node-debug\", \"--debug\");\nlib/Munin/Node/Configure/Debug.pm:1:package Munin::Node::Configure::Debug;\nlib/Munin/Node/Configure/Debug.pm:11:use Munin::Node::Config;\nlib/Munin/Node/Configure/Debug.pm:12:my $config = Munin::Node::Config->instance();\nlib/Munin/Node/Configure/Debug.pm:24:Munin::Node::Configure::Debug - Prints a debug message in the standard munin-node-configure format.\nlib/Munin/Node/Configure/Debug.pm:37:Prints $message in the standard munin-node-configure format (to STDOUT,\nlib/Munin/Common/TLSServer.pm:60: $tls = Munin::Node::TLSServer->new(...);\nlib/Munin/Common/TLSServer.pm:69: $tls = Munin::Node::TLSServer->new(...);\nlib/Munin/Common/TLSServer.pm:71:See L<Munin::Node::TLS> for documentation for constructor arguments.\ndebian/munin-node.install:1:etc/munin/munin-node.conf\ndebian/munin-node.install:2:usr/bin/munin-node\ndebian/munin-node.install:3:usr/bin/munin-node-configure\nlib/Munin/Node/Configure/PluginList.pm:1:package Munin::Node::Configure::PluginList;\nlib/Munin/Node/Configure/PluginList.pm:9:use Munin::Node::Service;\nlib/Munin/Node/Configure/PluginList.pm:10:use Munin::Node::Configure::Plugin;\nlib/Munin/Node/Configure/PluginList.pm:11:use Munin::Node::Configure::History;\nlib/Munin/Node/Configure/PluginList.pm:12:use Munin::Node::Configure::Debug;\nlib/Munin/Node/Configure/PluginList.pm:22:    my $library  = Munin::Node::Service->new(servicedir => $libdir);\nlib/Munin/Node/Configure/PluginList.pm:23:    my $services = Munin::Node::Service->new(servicedir => $servicedir);\nlib/Munin/Node/Configure/PluginList.pm:64:    my $history = Munin::Node::Configure::History->new(\nlib/Munin/Node/Configure/PluginList.pm:78:        my $plugin = Munin::Node::Configure::Plugin->new(name => $plug, path => $path);\nlib/Munin/Node/Configure/PluginList.pm:169:Munin::Node::Configure::PluginList - Loading and listing a collection of plugins\nlib/Munin/Node/Configure/PluginList.pm:174:  my $plugins = Munin::Node::Configure::PluginList->new(\nlib/Munin/Node/Configure/PluginList.pm:204:Returns a list of Munin::Node::Configure::Plugin objects currently loaded,\ndebian/munin-node.manpages:2:doc/_build/man/munin-node.8\ndebian/munin-node.manpages:3:doc/_build/man/munin-node.conf.5\ndebian/munin-node.manpages:4:doc/_build/man/munin-node-configure.1\ndoc/reference/munin-update.rst:16:(munin-nodes) and collecting their data. Upon fetching the data,\ndebian/munin.README.Debian:35:On all servers you want to monitor, install the «munin-node» package.\ndebian/munin.README.Debian:40:/etc/munin/munin-node.conf::\ndebian/munin.README.Debian:54:After changing munin-node configuration, you need to restart the munin\ndebian/munin.README.Debian:57:  # service munin-node restart\ndebian/patches/async-spool-directory.patch:40:         --host <hostname:port>  Connect to this munin-node [localhost:4949]\nlib/Munin/Node/Service.pm:1:package Munin::Node::Service;\nlib/Munin/Node/Service.pm:10:use Munin::Node::Config;\nlib/Munin/Node/Service.pm:11:use Munin::Node::OS;\nlib/Munin/Node/Service.pm:16:my $config = Munin::Node::Config->instance();\nlib/Munin/Node/Service.pm:33:        unless (Munin::Node::OS->check_perms_if_paranoid($args{servicedir}));\nlib/Munin/Node/Service.pm:81:    $config->{fqdn} ||= Munin::Node::OS->get_fq_hostname();\nlib/Munin/Node/Service.pm:87:    # munin-node will override this with the IP of the connecting master\nlib/Munin/Node/Service.pm:155:    my $u = Munin::Node::OS->get_uid($service_user);\nlib/Munin/Node/Service.pm:179:        my $gid = Munin::Node::OS->get_gid($group);\nlib/Munin/Node/Service.pm:222:                Munin::Node::OS->set_real_group_id($rgid) unless $rgid == $root_gid;\nlib/Munin/Node/Service.pm:223:                Munin::Node::OS->set_real_user_id($uid)   unless $uid  == $root_uid;\nlib/Munin/Node/Service.pm:228:            Munin::Node::OS->set_effective_group_id($egids) unless $rgid == $root_gid;\nlib/Munin/Node/Service.pm:229:            Munin::Node::OS->set_effective_user_id($uid)    unless $uid  == $root_uid;\nlib/Munin/Node/Service.pm:252:    Munin::Node::OS->mkdir_subdir(\"$Munin::Common::Defaults::MUNIN_PLUGSTATE\", $uid);\nlib/Munin/Node/Service.pm:256:    unless (Munin::Node::OS->check_perms_if_paranoid(\"$self->{servicedir}/$service\")) {\nlib/Munin/Node/Service.pm:263:    Munin::Node::OS::set_umask();\nlib/Munin/Node/Service.pm:321:    return Munin::Node::OS->run_as_child($timeout, $run_service);\nlib/Munin/Node/Service.pm:332:Munin::Node::Service - Methods related to handling of Munin services\nlib/Munin/Node/Service.pm:337: my $services = Munin::Node::Service->new(timeout => 30);\nlib/Munin/Node/Service.pm:349: my $services = Munin::Node::Service->new(%args);\nlib/Munin/Node/Service.pm:428:L<Munin::Node::Service> for a comprehensive description.)\nlib/Munin/Node/SpoolReader.pm:1:package Munin::Node::SpoolReader;\nlib/Munin/Node/SpoolReader.pm:18:use Munin::Node::Config;\nlib/Munin/Node/SpoolReader.pm:19:my $config = Munin::Node::Config->instance;\nlib/Munin/Node/SpoolReader.pm:232:Munin::Node::SpoolReader - Reading side of the spool functionality\nlib/Munin/Node/SpoolReader.pm:236:  my $spool = Munin::Node::SpoolReader->new(spooldir => $spooldir);\nlib/Munin/Node/SpoolReader.pm:245:Constructor.  'spooldir' should be the directory L<Munin::Node::SpoolWriter> is\ndebian/README.PluginConfiguration:8:Configuration files are read only once during the startup of \"munin-node\".\nlib/Munin/Common/Config.pm:235:Don't use it directly. See L<Munin::Master::Config> and L<Munin::Node::Config>.\ndoc/reference/munin-get.rst:32:    service munin-node restart   # for systemd: systemctl restart munin-node\nlib/Munin/Node/Server.pm:1:package Munin::Node::Server;\nlib/Munin/Node/Server.pm:11:use Munin::Node::Config;\nlib/Munin/Node/Server.pm:17:use Munin::Node::Session;\nlib/Munin/Node/Server.pm:18:use Munin::Node::Utils;\nlib/Munin/Node/Server.pm:21:# the Munin::Node::Service object, used to run plugins, etc\nlib/Munin/Node/Server.pm:24:# may reference a Munin::Node::SpoolReader object, which is used to\nlib/Munin/Node/Server.pm:40:my $config = Munin::Node::Config->instance();\nlib/Munin/Node/Server.pm:119:    my $session = Munin::Node::Session->new();\nlib/Munin/Node/Server.pm:277:                  || \"$Munin::Common::Defaults::MUNIN_CONFDIR/munin-node.pem\";\nlib/Munin/Node/Server.pm:279:                  || \"$Munin::Common::Defaults::MUNIN_CONFDIR/munin-node.pem\";\nlib/Munin/Node/Server.pm:353:        @services = Munin::Node::Utils::set_difference(\\@services, \\@multigraph_services)\nlib/Munin/Node/Server.pm:355:        @services = Munin::Node::Utils::set_difference(\\@services, \\@dirtyconfig_services)\nlib/Munin/Node/Server.pm:431:Munin::Node::Server - This module implements a Net::Server server for\nlib/Munin/Node/Server.pm:436: use Munin::Node::Server;\nlib/Munin/Node/Server.pm:437: Munin::Node::Server->run(...);\ndebian/munin-node.cron.d:2:# cron-jobs for munin-node\nChecklist:7:      Does munin-node-configure -d show any autoconf errors?\nChecklist:8:      Does munin-node-configure --debug run nicely or do we get perl errors?\ndebian/changelog:34:    - munin-node: add /usr/bin/munin-get, which is a simple tool for managing\ndebian/changelog:38:    - munin-node and munin-run manpages have moved from section 1 to 8, adjust\ndebian/changelog:39:      d/munin-node.manpages and d/munin-node.service accordingly.\ndebian/changelog:84:  * Add netbase to munin's and munin-node's depends.\ndebian/changelog:118:  * munin and munin-node: use separate maintscript files\ndebian/changelog:144:  * Revive /etc/munin/plugin-conf.d/munin-node\ndebian/changelog:151:  * Set \"PrivateDevices=false\" for \"munin-node\" service in order to\ndebian/changelog:173:  * munin-node: include manpage for \"munin-doc\"\ndebian/changelog:184:  * simplify init script for munin-node via \"init-d-script\"\ndebian/changelog:188:    from \"munin-node\" (removed by upstream)\ndebian/changelog:189:  * improve README.PluginConfiguration (for \"munin-node\")\ndebian/changelog:200:  * munin and munin-node: remove users after purge\ndebian/changelog:243:  * debian/munin-node.triggers: use explicit interest-await triggers for\ndebian/changelog:244:    perl-major-upgrades and for munin-node.\ndebian/changelog:246:    to activate the munin-node trigger.\ndebian/changelog:278:  * debian/munin-node.service:  Delay start of munin-node until network is up.\ndebian/changelog:353:  * Move suggests to libcache-cache-perl and libdbd-mysql-perl from munin-node\ndebian/changelog:431:  * munin-node.init: drop support for sarge, five years after Debian dropped\ndebian/changelog:465:  * munin-node.postinst: Fix install/upgrade detection\ndebian/changelog:532:  * munin-node.postinst: delete /var/lib/munin(-node)/plugin-state recursively\ndebian/changelog:538:  * munin-async.init: Run munin-async after munin-node has been started.\ndebian/changelog:550:  * Patch node/munin-node.conf.in to allow incoming IPv6 from localhost,\ndebian/changelog:585:    - munin-node: more secure state file handling, introducing a new plugin\ndebian/changelog:590:      /var/lib/munin-node/plugin-state/$uid/$some_file now - please report\ndebian/changelog:603:  * munin-node.postinst: don't create /var/lib/munin/plugin-state anymore as\ndebian/changelog:604:    munin-node now uses /var/lib/munin-nodes/plugin-state and subdirs and\ndebian/changelog:607:    /var/lib/async from munin-node package to munin-async.\ndebian/changelog:609:    - make munin-async depend on munin-node for now.\ndebian/changelog:629:    - use stop function from munin-node.init to make it actually stop it\ndebian/changelog:655:  * Make munin-node depend on munin-plugins-core unconditionally and recommend\ndebian/changelog:657:  * debian/munin-node.postinst: chmod 775 /var/lib/munin/plugin-state\ndebian/changelog:669:  * /etc/init/munin-node: chmod 755 /var/log/munin (Closes: #674747)\ndebian/changelog:670:  * Make munin-node suggest munin-plugins-java and not munin-java-plugins.\ndebian/changelog:677:  * Make munin-node depend on munin-plugins-core | munin-plugins.\ndebian/changelog:679:  * munin-node.logroate: create munin-node.log owned by root.\ndebian/changelog:708:  * munin-node.postinst: chmod 755 /var/log/munin (Closes: #669230)\ndebian/changelog:719:  * Create /var/lib/munin/plugin-state in munin-node.postinst if it does not\ndebian/changelog:748:  * Create /var/log/munin in /etc/init.d/munin-node (Closes: #626570)\ndebian/changelog:750:    statoverrides in munin's and munin-nodes' postinst and just running chown and\ndebian/changelog:768:  * also from upstream: munin-node: Removed the 5s per-line timeout.\ndebian/changelog:827:    included in the munin-node package. This enables us to:\ndebian/changelog:828:    - have alternate munin-node packages in future.\ndebian/changelog:840:      It enables decoupling munin, munin-node & munin-plugin-* versions.\ndebian/changelog:859:      munin-node.\ndebian/changelog:913:    recompile rules and restart munin-node when perl is upgraded to a new\ndebian/changelog:928:    and in munin-node:\ndebian/changelog:970:  * munin-plugins-extra: conflicts with lenny's munin-node (Closes: #590630)\ndebian/changelog:988:  * Suggest libnet-ssleay-perl in munin, munin-node. This package is needed\ndebian/changelog:1000:    - munin-node: diskstats plugin forces width to 450 (Closes: #569541)\ndebian/changelog:1002:    - munin-node: tomcat_* plugins don't work (Closes: #543523)\ndebian/changelog:1016:  * Suggest logtail in munin-node instead of munin-plugins-extra, as amavis\ndebian/changelog:1017:    plugin is now part of munin-node.\ndebian/changelog:1023:  * Place NEWS file only in munin,munin-node packages (Closes: #567844)\ndebian/changelog:1046:  * Add /var/log/munin-node-configure.log to munin-node.postrm so it will\ndebian/changelog:1083:  * Add depends on the same version of munin-common to munin, munin-node.\ndebian/changelog:1104:  * Update munin-node plugin configuration for postfix. (Closes: #559165)\ndebian/changelog:1107:  * debian/control: Add a \"Replaces: munin-plugins-extra\" to munin-node, as\ndebian/changelog:1133:    munin and munin-node. Added depends on munin-common to munin,\ndebian/changelog:1134:    munin-node.\ndebian/changelog:1138:  * Add suggests to libtext-csv-xs-perl for munin-node, required by\ndebian/changelog:1140:  * Add suggests to libxml-simple-perl for munin-node, required by\ndebian/changelog:1142:  * Add suggests to libdbd-mysql-perl,libcache-cache-perl for munin-node\ndebian/changelog:1144:  * Add suggests to ruby for munin-node.\ndebian/changelog:1145:  * Update new manpages names for munin-node.manpages.\ndebian/changelog:1156:  * Improve ignore_file in /etc/munin/munin-node.conf. (Closes: #518401)\ndebian/changelog:1157:  * munin-node logrotate now rotates munin-node.log with munin user ownership.\ndebian/changelog:1165:  * munin-node: improve ignore_file in /etc/munin/munin-node.conf.\ndebian/changelog:1167:  * munin-node: iostat plugin does not print values for Xen domU disks.\ndebian/changelog:1219:  * Add libcrypt-ssleay-perl to munin-nodes suggests as the apache plugins\ndebian/changelog:1227:  * munin-node: Change \"allow\" to \"cidr_allow\" (Closes: #540805)\ndebian/changelog:1228:  * munin-node: Changing mode of /etc/munin/plugin-conf.d to root:munin 750.\ndebian/changelog:1233:  * munin-node: In munin-node.conf, \"setseid\" should be correctly spelled\ndebian/changelog:1243:  * Restart munin-node after initialising plugins. (Closes: #543613)\ndebian/changelog:1276:  * munin.postinst and munin-node.postinst: workaround bug in xen-tools\ndebian/changelog:1300:  * Add suggests to net-tools for munin-node as netstat is a common plugin.\ndebian/changelog:1301:  * Create /var/run/munin unconditionally in munin-nodes initscript,\ndebian/changelog:1357:  * munin-node.postinst: only execute $TMPFILE if munin-node-configure (which\ndebian/changelog:1359:  * node/munin-node.conf.pod: fix error from pod2man spotted by lintian.\ndebian/changelog:1365:  * Add trivial patch from Guido Günther to munin-node to allow colons in\ndebian/changelog:1379:    munin-node.README.Debian.\ndebian/changelog:1381:    to munin-node suggests.\ndebian/changelog:1382:  * Make munin-node suggests of smartmontools versioned to >=5.37-6~bpo40+1\ndebian/changelog:1404:  * munin-node: Add an entry to /etc/munin/plugin-conf.d/munin-node to let the\ndebian/changelog:1417:  * Install munin-node gracefully (ie. inside a chroot, where port 4949 is\ndebian/changelog:1418:    bound to another munin-node already) : munin-node.postinst: don't exit\ndebian/changelog:1419:    postinst with error if just munin-node-configure fails. debian/rules: use\ndebian/changelog:1421:  * munin-node: if_ and if_err_ plugins: add msh|venet|veth to the regex of\ndebian/changelog:1423:  * munin-node: postfix_mailqueue plugin: use postconf to detect postfix's\ndebian/changelog:1428:  * munin-node: depend on gawk. (Closes: #491559)\ndebian/changelog:1429:  * munin-node: add versioned dependency on lsb-base. (Closes: #469311)\ndebian/changelog:1430:  * munin-node-configure: don't treat empty suggests as errors.\ndebian/changelog:1432:  * munin-node: sensors plugin: don't output errors on autoconf and suggest if\ndebian/changelog:1441:  * Add liblwp-useragent-determined-perl to suggests for the munin-node\ndebian/changelog:1445:  * Fix typo in munin-node postinst. (Closes: #489591)\ndebian/changelog:1482:    fail if munin-node-configure fails, for example if /proc is not mounted.\ndebian/changelog:1542:      - munin-node-configure-snmp now handles errors better, closes: #320455.\ndebian/changelog:1551:  * debian/munin-node.init, debian/munin.cron.d:\ndebian/changelog:1560:  * debian/munin-node.init:\ndebian/changelog:1587:  * debian/munin-node.init, debian/control:\ndebian/changelog:1600:    debian/munin-node.preinst (removed), debian/munin-node.postinst:\ndebian/changelog:1604:  * debian/munin.postrm, debian/munin-node.postrm:\ndebian/changelog:1607:  * debian/munin-node.cron.d:\ndebian/changelog:1613:      - Make munin-node suggest ethtool, closes: #311603.\ndebian/changelog:1619:  * debian/munin-node.init, debian/control:\ndebian/changelog:1674:  * node/munin-node.in:\ndebian/changelog:1679:  * node/munin-node.in, node/munin-run.in:\ndebian/changelog:1688:  * node/munin-node.in, node/munin-run.in:\ndebian/changelog:1715:      - Do not include contrib plugins in the munin-node package anymore.\ndebian/changelog:1718:  * debian/rules, debian/munin-node.postinst:\ndebian/changelog:1741:  * debian/munin-node.manpages:\ndebian/changelog:1742:      - Include munin-node-configure-snmp(8).\ndebian/changelog:1756:        read NEWS.Debian before upgrading the \"munin-node\" package!\ndebian/changelog:1765:      - The munin-node.conf setting default_plugin_user now actually works as\ndebian/changelog:1801:      - Change libnet-snmp-perl to be a recommended package for munin-node\ndebian/changelog:1802:        instead of only suggested, as the new munin-node-configure-snmp\ndebian/changelog:1821:  * debian/munin.postinst, debian/munin-node.postinst, debian/munin.postrm,\ndebian/changelog:1822:    debian/munin-node.postrm:\ndebian/changelog:1888:    - munin-node: LANG-dependant behaviour changes (Closes: #255312).\ndebian/changelog:1898:    - munin-node: plugin iostat_ios has improper magic file\ndebian/changelog:1927:        munin-node package, closes: #236939, #236972, #245104.\ndebian/changelog:1970:  * debian/munin-node.init:\ndebian/changelog:1975:  * debian/munin.preinst (new), debian/munin-node.preinst (new):\ndebian/munin-node.dirs:3:var/log/munin-node\ndebian/munin-node.dirs:4:var/lib/munin-node\ndebian/munin-node.dirs:5:var/lib/munin-node/plugin-state\ndebian/munin-plugins-core.bug-control:1:report-with: munin-common munin-node\ndebian/munin-async.bug-control:1:report-with: munin-common munin-node\nlib/Munin/Node/OS.pm:1:package Munin::Node::OS;\nlib/Munin/Node/OS.pm:10:use Munin::Node::Config;\nlib/Munin/Node/OS.pm:47:    my $config = Munin::Node::Config->instance();\nlib/Munin/Node/OS.pm:99: \tmy $nfound = select($rout=$rin, $wout=$win, $eout=$ein, undef);\nlib/Munin/Node/OS.pm:157:        Munin::Node::OS->reap_child_group($pid)\nlib/Munin/Node/OS.pm:271:Munin::Node::OS - OS related utility methods for the Munin node.\nlib/Munin/Node/OS.pm:276: use Munin::Node::OS;\nlib/Munin/Node/OS.pm:277: my $uid  = Munin::Node::OS->get_uid('foo');\nlib/Munin/Node/OS.pm:278: my $host = Munin::Node::OS->get_fq_hostname();\nplugins/node.d.debug/if:23:Link this plugin to /etc/munin/plugins/ and restart the munin-node.\ndoc/reference/munin-cron.rst:13:combination with :ref:`munin-node`.\ndebian/munin-common.bug-control:1:report-with: munin munin-node\nlib/Munin/Common/TLSClient.pm:75: $tls = Munin::Node::TLSClient->new(...);\nlib/Munin/Common/TLSClient.pm:84: $tls = Munin::Node::TLSClient->new(...);\nlib/Munin/Common/TLSClient.pm:86:See L<Munin::Node::TLS> for documentation for constructor arguments.\nscript/munin-get:43:the \"munin-node\" service process.\nscript/munin-get:57:    service munin-node restart   # for systemd: systemctl restart munin-node\nscript/munin-get:80:hardening features enabled for \"munin-node\". Thus the target of the symlink is located in a path\nscript/munin-get:81:that can be expected to be usable even for a restricted \"munin-node\" process.\nscript/munin-get:118:# location of \"enabled\" munin plugins (munin-node uses this directory by default)\nweb/static/js/jquery-1.12.4.js:903:\treturn select( selector.replace( rtrim, \"$1\" ), context, results, seed );\nscript/munin-doc:97:auto configuration (done by munin-node-configure).\ndoc/reference/munin-run.rst:15:the same conditions as they are under :ref:`munin-node`.\ndoc/reference/munin-run.rst:22:   Use <file> as configuration file. [/etc/munin/munin-node.conf]\ndoc/reference/munin-run.rst:65::ref:`/etc/munin/munin-node.conf <munin-node.conf>`\ndoc/reference/munin-run.rst:71::ref:`/var/run/munin/munin-node.pid <rundir>`\ndoc/reference/munin-run.rst:73::ref:`/var/log/munin/munin-node.log <logdir>`\nweb/static/js/munin-nodeview.js:2: * Javascript executed on munin-nodeview page\ndebian/munin-node.service:3:Documentation=man:munin-node(8) http://guide.munin-monitoring.org/en/latest/reference/munin-node.html\ndebian/munin-node.service:7:EnvironmentFile=-/etc/default/munin-node\ndebian/munin-node.service:10:ExecStart=/usr/bin/munin-node $DAEMON_ARGS\ndebian/munin-node.service:11:PIDFile=/run/munin-node.pid\ndoc/reference/history.rst:52:These are tagged with **family contrib** (see: :option:`--families` in :ref:`munin-node-configure`).\ndebian/munin-node.init:7:# Provides:          munin-node\ndebian/munin-node.init:18:NAME=munin-node\ndebian/munin-node.init:19:DAEMON=/usr/bin/munin-node\ndoc/plugin/env.rst:49:  Default: ``/var/lib/munin-node/$USER``\ndoc/reference/index.rst:41:   munin-node-configure.rst\ndoc/reference/index.rst:42:   munin-node.rst\ndoc/reference/index.rst:46:   munin-node.conf.rst\ndebian/munin-async.service:4:Wants=munin-node.service\ndebian/munin-async.service:5:After=munin-node.service\nBuild.PL:62:C<>munin-node-configure> will look in this directory.\nBuild.PL:129:        'etc/munin-node.conf.PL'          => 'etc/munin-node.conf.sample',\nBuild.PL:137:        'etc/munin-node.conf.sample' => 'etc/munin-node.conf.sample',\nBuild.PL:150:            script/munin-node\nBuild.PL:151:            script/munin-node-configure\nBuild.PL:326:            . '/lib/munin-node/plugin-state' );\ndoc/reference/munin-node.conf.rst:1:.. _munin-node.conf:\ndoc/reference/munin-node.conf.rst:4:munin-node.conf\ndoc/reference/munin-node.conf.rst:10:This is the configuration file for :ref:`munin-node` and :ref:`munin-run`.\ndoc/reference/munin-node.conf.rst:15:All other directives in munin-node.conf are passed through to the Perl\ndoc/reference/munin-node.conf.rst:29:   The hostname used by munin-node to present itself to the munin\ndoc/reference/munin-node.conf.rst:39:   If set to a true value, :ref:`munin-node` will only run plugins\ndoc/reference/munin-node.conf.rst:46::ref:`munin-node`.\ndoc/reference/munin-node.conf.rst:73:   munin-node to run as a foreground process, comment this line out\ndoc/reference/munin-node.conf.rst:78:   The user munin-node runs as\ndoc/reference/munin-node.conf.rst:84:   The group munin-node runs as\ndoc/reference/munin-node.conf.rst:98:   :ref:`munin-node` holds the connection to Munin master only a limited number of seconds to get the requested operation finished.\ndoc/reference/munin-node.conf.rst:141:.. _example-munin-node.conf:\ndoc/reference/munin-node.conf.rst:147:   tuple: munin-node.conf; example\ndoc/reference/munin-node.conf.rst:154:  # Example config-file for munin-node\ndoc/reference/munin-node.conf.rst:158:  log_file /var/log/munin-node/munin-node.log\ndoc/reference/munin-node.conf.rst:159:  pid_file /var/run/munin/munin-node.pid\ndoc/reference/munin-node.conf.rst:223::ref:`munin-node`, :ref:`munin-run`\ndebian/munin-plugins-core.postrm:8:\trm -rf /var/lib/munin-node/plugin-state/*\ndebian/rules:29:\tmv debian/tmp/etc/munin/munin-node.conf.sample debian/tmp/e

[truncated 48574 bytes]

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

Response

## Plan Pass



## Workflow Note

{"type":"item.completed","item":{"id":"item_21","type":"reasoning","text":"**Planning build checks**\n**Planning Perl syntax checks**"}}
{"type":"error","message":"Reconnecting... 1/5 (stream disconnected before completion: Upstream websocket closed before response.completed: Upstream websocket receive failed)"}
{"type":"error","message":"Reconnecting... 2/5 (unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: d301c584-aca4-45ad-816b-41640d4f1fd7)"}
{"type":"error","message":"Reconnecting... 3/5 (unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: dd471dd9-6b87-4db4-940e-026615597bbb)"}
{"type":"error","message":"Reconnecting... 4/5 (unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: 10d4ea87-5e91-4dfc-84aa-81123cbc824c)"}
{"type":"error","message":"Reconnecting... 5/5 (unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: 52ce429f-c31a-4819-beb1-47747c1240b3)"}
{"type":"error","message":"unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: a39e49c2-0cc6-4d80-ade6-c4082a037e5b"}
{"type":"turn.failed","error":{"message":"unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: a39e49c2-0cc6-4d80-ade6-c4082a037e5b"}}

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Codex suba

[truncated 3140 bytes]

Response

## Plan Pass

The additional scout findings are consistent with the plan: `make` and `make test` are the project entrypoints; `make check` is not defined. The project docs also describe `perl Build.PL` followed by `./Build test` as the test workflow, but `Build` is absent in this checkout. The evidence still does not establish a Munin source bug, so the plan remains diagnosis-only.

## Patch Pass

Subject: Diagnose munin-node profiler signal before proposing a patch

## Commit Message
No source change is proposed. The available profile does not establish a Munin code defect: it records a sleeping `munin-node` process waiting in `pselect6`, with 0.9% total CPU, but does not identify a script-level hot loop.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
Fixer’s evidence shows three `pselect6` calls timing out after roughly 1.8–2 seconds, a sleeping process, and 0.9% CPU; the profiler’s hot symbol is in the kernel. This suggests a waiting process, not a demonstrated busy poll. The entrypoint delegates its server loop to `Net::Server::Fork`; Munin’s separate `select` loop in `Munin::Node::OS` reads plugin output, but the evidence does not connect that code to the samples. No source change was made. The expected effect is to avoid a speculative upstream fix until a Perl-level trace ties the signal to Munin code or the runtime.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` failed while invoking `Build.PL`: `Module::Build.pm` is missing.
- `make check` is not defined in the workspace Makefile.
- `perl -Ilib -c script/munin-node` failed because the taint-mode script requires `-T`; `perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node` passed.
- No independent reproduction was run: the bundle lacks the triggering workload and script-level cause, and launching a node without that context would not establish the reported signal. No relevant event-loop wrapper was found; the server loop uses `Net::Server::Fork`. `HACKING.pod` documents `stable-2.0` for bug fixes, but with no patch proposed, no merge-request base change is applicable.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: ok

The first pass is a diagnosis, not a source patch; the workspace has no source diff. `inferred` is appropriate: the evidence shows a sleeping process, 0.9% CPU, and timed `pselect6` waits, without a script-level stack tying the samples to Munin code.

Validation reports `make` failing because `Module::Build.pm` is missing, notes that `make check` is unavailable, and records the successful taint-mode syntax check. Not running an independent reproduction is reasonable here: the evidence does not include a workload that could be reproduced safely and meaningfully. No relevant event-loop helper was found; the server loop delegates to `Net::Server::Fork`.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Codex suba

[truncated 3140 bytes]

Response

## Plan Pass

The additional scout findings are consistent with the plan: `make` and `make test` are the project entrypoints; `make check` is not defined. The project docs also describe `perl Build.PL` followed by `./Build test` as the test workflow, but `Build` is absent in this checkout. The evidence still does not establish a Munin source bug, so the plan remains diagnosis-only.

## Patch Pass

Subject: Diagnose munin-node profiler signal before proposing a patch

## Commit Message
No source change is proposed. The available profile does not establish a Munin code defect: it records a sleeping `munin-node` process waiting in `pselect6`, with 0.9% total CPU, but does not identify a script-level hot loop.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
Fixer’s evidence shows three `pselect6` calls timing out after roughly 1.8–2 seconds, a sleeping process, and 0.9% CPU; the profiler’s hot symbol is in the kernel. This suggests a waiting process, not a demonstrated busy poll. The entrypoint delegates its server loop to `Net::Server::Fork`; Munin’s separate `select` loop in `Munin::Node::OS` reads plugin output, but the evidence does not connect that code to the samples. No source change was made. The expected effect is to avoid a speculative upstream fix until a Perl-level trace ties the signal to Munin code or the runtime.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` failed while invoking `Build.PL`: `Module::Build.pm` is missing.
- `make check` is not defined in the workspace Makefile.
- `perl -Ilib -c script/munin-node` failed because the taint-mode script requires `-T`; `perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node` passed.
- No independent reproduction was run: the bundle lacks the triggering workload and script-level cause, and launching a node without that context would not establish the reported signal. No relevant event-loop wrapper was found; the server loop uses `Net::Server::Fork`. `HACKING.pod` documents `stable-2.0` for bug fixes, but with no patch proposed, no merge-request base change is applicable.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: ok

The first pass is a diagnosis, not a source patch; the workspace has no source diff. `inferred` is appropriate: the evidence shows a sleeping process, 0.9% CPU, and timed `pselect6` waits, without a script-level stack tying the samples to Munin code.

Validation reports `make` failing because `Module::Build.pm` is missing, notes that `make check` is unavailable, and records the successful taint-mode syntax check. Not running an independent reproduction is reasonable here: the evidence does not include a workload that could be reproduced safely and meaningfully. No relevant event-loop helper was found; the server loop delegates to `Net::Server::Fork`.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Codex suba

[truncated 15284 bytes]

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem
Fixer flags `/usr/sbin/munin-node` as a possible busy-poll loop, but the collected evidence does not identify a Munin source-level cause or confirm excessive CPU use.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

The trace shows three `pselect6` calls timing out after roughly 1.8–2 seconds, and the process is reported as sleeping. The Perl-level stack is missing. These observations do not establish a busy loop, application bug, or runtime bug.

## Proposed Subject
No source patch proposed. Gather process-level CPU data and a Perl-level stack for the affected process before considering code changes.

## Patch Plan
- Start with `script/munin-node`, which delegates server startup to `Munin::Node::Server`; that module inherits `Net::Server::Fork`, so the framework—not a Munin-local event loop—owns listener polling.
- Munin’s request loop uses `Munin::Common::Timeout::do_with_timeout`; its direct `select` helper in `lib/Munin/Node/OS.pm` is for plugin-child I/O and is not tied to this signal.
- No prior Fixer patch is present. No relevant Munin event-loop I/O wrapper was found; follow existing timeout and child-process helpers if further evidence supports a patch. Avoid changing the Perl runtime or adding control-flow workarounds, including `goto`, without proof.
- `HACKING.pod` recommends `stable-2.0` for bug fixes and `master` for non-bug-fix changes. The workspace has only `master` and no remote refs, so the upstream base should be confirmed before any future source patch.

## Risks
Changing inherited polling, timeout, or signal behavior could affect connection handling and daemon liveness. The evidence does not establish a user-visible failure, so a source patch would be speculative.

## Validation
For any later patch, try `make` from the workspace root first, then `make check` if available; the Makefile exposes `make test` as the project test target. If those fail because generated files or dependencies are missing, record the exact command and failure, then try the narrowest reproducible Perl compile or test. Independently collect a bounded process CPU/stack and syscall trace for the affected `munin-node`; do not claim reproduction unless that attempt demonstrates the reported failure.

## Patch Pass

Subject: Diagnose munin-node polling evidence without a source patch

## Commit Message
No source change. The available trace does not establish a Munin bug: `munin-node` is reported sleeping, with only 0.9% CPU, while its sampled `pselect6` calls time out after roughly 1.8–2 seconds. The 100% hot-symbol attribution is to the kernel’s `perf_ctx_enable`, not a Munin or Perl function. This is consistent with an idle server waiting for activity, but does not prove the original process’s behavior.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
Fixer’s evidence reports a suspected busy-poll loop, but the accompanying `/proc` data reports a sleeping process at 0.9% CPU, and `strace` captured three timed `pselect6` calls rather than a tight sequence of immediate returns. Munin’s `script/munin-node` delegates server startup to `Munin::Node::Server`, which inherits its listener loop from `Net::Server::Fork`; the evidence does not connect the kernel samples to a Munin source-level defect. I made no code change because the signal is indirect and does not justify a source patch. The expected effect is to avoid changing normal server polling until a Perl-level stack or a reproducible high-CPU case identifies a cause.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` from the workspace root failed because `Build.PL` could not find `Module/Build.pm` (`Can't locate Module/Build.pm in @INC`).
- `make check` failed because the Makefile has no `check` target.
- `perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node` passed (`syntax OK`).
- Bounded smoke command `timeout 5s perl -T -I<workspace>/lib <workspace>/script/munin-node --version` exited successfully. It does not reproduce the reported polling signal. The original process and its runtime conditions are unavailable, so an equivalent independent reproduction could not be established safely from this workspace.
- No relevant Munin-local listener-loop helper was found; the listener loop is delegated to `Net::Server::Fork`. `HACKING.pod` recommends `stable-2.0` for bug fixes, but no patch is proposed; only `master` is present locally.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: fix-needed

## Findings
- The report says `strace` captured three timed-out `pselect6` calls, but the third line in `evidence.json` is truncated before its result or duration. Limit this claim to the two complete timeout records.
- The validation command uses literal `<workspace>` placeholders, which are not a runnable shell command. Replace them with the actual command used, or remove the success claim. Also clarify that `--version` is only an entrypoint smoke check, not a reproduction of the server’s polling behavior; the captured PID is not present in this workspace.

## Refinement Pass 1

Subject: Diagnose munin-node polling evidence without a source patch

## Commit Message
No source change. The evidence does not establish a Munin defect, so changing the server’s polling behavior would be speculative.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
Fixer reports a possible busy-poll loop, but the evidence shows a sleeping process at 0.9% CPU and two complete `pselect6` calls timing out after roughly 1.8–2 seconds; the third syscall record is truncated before its result. The 100% hot-symbol attribution is to kernel `perf_ctx_enable`, and no Perl-level stack ties the signal to Munin code. Munin delegates listener polling to `Net::Server::Fork`; no relevant Munin-local listener-loop helper was found. I made no source change. The expected effect is to avoid speculative changes until stronger evidence connects the signal to a code path.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` failed because `Build.PL` could not find `Module/Build.pm`; `make check` failed because the Makefile has no `check` target.
- `perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node` passed.
- `timeout 5s perl -T -I./workspace/lib ./workspace/script/munin-node --version` exited successfully. This is an entrypoint smoke check, not a reproduction of server polling.
- `ps -p 3947104 -o pid,stat,pcpu,etime,wchan,args` found no matching process, so the captured process could not be independently reproduced from this workspace. `HACKING.pod` recommends `stable-2.0` for bug fixes; no patch is proposed.

## Review Pass 2

RESULT: ok

The refined response corrects the syscall count, gives a runnable smoke command, and clearly distinguishes that smoke check from reproducing the polling signal. The inferred, no-patch diagnosis matches the evidence; the workspace has no source diff.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Codex suba

[truncated 15284 bytes]

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem
Fixer flags `/usr/sbin/munin-node` as a possible busy-poll loop, but the collected evidence does not identify a Munin source-level cause or confirm excessive CPU use.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

The trace shows three `pselect6` calls timing out after roughly 1.8–2 seconds, and the process is reported as sleeping. The Perl-level stack is missing. These observations do not establish a busy loop, application bug, or runtime bug.

## Proposed Subject
No source patch proposed. Gather process-level CPU data and a Perl-level stack for the affected process before considering code changes.

## Patch Plan
- Start with `script/munin-node`, which delegates server startup to `Munin::Node::Server`; that module inherits `Net::Server::Fork`, so the framework—not a Munin-local event loop—owns listener polling.
- Munin’s request loop uses `Munin::Common::Timeout::do_with_timeout`; its direct `select` helper in `lib/Munin/Node/OS.pm` is for plugin-child I/O and is not tied to this signal.
- No prior Fixer patch is present. No relevant Munin event-loop I/O wrapper was found; follow existing timeout and child-process helpers if further evidence supports a patch. Avoid changing the Perl runtime or adding control-flow workarounds, including `goto`, without proof.
- `HACKING.pod` recommends `stable-2.0` for bug fixes and `master` for non-bug-fix changes. The workspace has only `master` and no remote refs, so the upstream base should be confirmed before any future source patch.

## Risks
Changing inherited polling, timeout, or signal behavior could affect connection handling and daemon liveness. The evidence does not establish a user-visible failure, so a source patch would be speculative.

## Validation
For any later patch, try `make` from the workspace root first, then `make check` if available; the Makefile exposes `make test` as the project test target. If those fail because generated files or dependencies are missing, record the exact command and failure, then try the narrowest reproducible Perl compile or test. Independently collect a bounded process CPU/stack and syscall trace for the affected `munin-node`; do not claim reproduction unless that attempt demonstrates the reported failure.

## Patch Pass

Subject: Diagnose munin-node polling evidence without a source patch

## Commit Message
No source change. The available trace does not establish a Munin bug: `munin-node` is reported sleeping, with only 0.9% CPU, while its sampled `pselect6` calls time out after roughly 1.8–2 seconds. The 100% hot-symbol attribution is to the kernel’s `perf_ctx_enable`, not a Munin or Perl function. This is consistent with an idle server waiting for activity, but does not prove the original process’s behavior.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
Fixer’s evidence reports a suspected busy-poll loop, but the accompanying `/proc` data reports a sleeping process at 0.9% CPU, and `strace` captured three timed `pselect6` calls rather than a tight sequence of immediate returns. Munin’s `script/munin-node` delegates server startup to `Munin::Node::Server`, which inherits its listener loop from `Net::Server::Fork`; the evidence does not connect the kernel samples to a Munin source-level defect. I made no code change because the signal is indirect and does not justify a source patch. The expected effect is to avoid changing normal server polling until a Perl-level stack or a reproducible high-CPU case identifies a cause.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` from the workspace root failed because `Build.PL` could not find `Module/Build.pm` (`Can't locate Module/Build.pm in @INC`).
- `make check` failed because the Makefile has no `check` target.
- `perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node` passed (`syntax OK`).
- Bounded smoke command `timeout 5s perl -T -I<workspace>/lib <workspace>/script/munin-node --version` exited successfully. It does not reproduce the reported polling signal. The original process and its runtime conditions are unavailable, so an equivalent independent reproduction could not be established safely from this workspace.
- No relevant Munin-local listener-loop helper was found; the listener loop is delegated to `Net::Server::Fork`. `HACKING.pod` recommends `stable-2.0` for bug fixes, but no patch is proposed; only `master` is present locally.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: fix-needed

## Findings
- The report says `strace` captured three timed-out `pselect6` calls, but the third line in `evidence.json` is truncated before its result or duration. Limit this claim to the two complete timeout records.
- The validation command uses literal `<workspace>` placeholders, which are not a runnable shell command. Replace them with the actual command used, or remove the success claim. Also clarify that `--version` is only an entrypoint smoke check, not a reproduction of the server’s polling behavior; the captured PID is not present in this workspace.

## Refinement Pass 1

Subject: Diagnose munin-node polling evidence without a source patch

## Commit Message
No source change. The evidence does not establish a Munin defect, so changing the server’s polling behavior would be speculative.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
Fixer reports a possible busy-poll loop, but the evidence shows a sleeping process at 0.9% CPU and two complete `pselect6` calls timing out after roughly 1.8–2 seconds; the third syscall record is truncated before its result. The 100% hot-symbol attribution is to kernel `perf_ctx_enable`, and no Perl-level stack ties the signal to Munin code. Munin delegates listener polling to `Net::Server::Fork`; no relevant Munin-local listener-loop helper was found. I made no source change. The expected effect is to avoid speculative changes until stronger evidence connects the signal to a code path.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` failed because `Build.PL` could not find `Module/Build.pm`; `make check` failed because the Makefile has no `check` target.
- `perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node` passed.
- `timeout 5s perl -T -I./workspace/lib ./workspace/script/munin-node --version` exited successfully. This is an entrypoint smoke check, not a reproduction of server polling.
- `ps -p 3947104 -o pid,stat,pcpu,etime,wchan,args` found no matching process, so the captured process could not be independently reproduced from this workspace. `HACKING.pod` recommends `stable-2.0` for bug fixes; no patch is proposed.

## Review Pass 2

RESULT: ok

The refined response corrects the syscall count, gives a runnable smoke command, and clearly distinguishes that smoke check from reproducing the polling signal. The inferred, no-patch diagnosis matches the evidence; the workspace has no source diff.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Codex suba

[truncated 3140 bytes]

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem
- Fixer labels `munin-node` a likely busy poll, but the evidence shows a sleeping process and `pselect6` calls that block for roughly 1.8–2 seconds before timing out. `script/munin-node` enters `Munin::Node::Server`, which inherits its listener loop from `Net::Server::Fork`; source inspection found that loop polls with a two-second timeout. That explains the syscall cadence, but not the reported CPU attribution.
- Inspect the application entrypoint first; the evidence does not justify changing Perl itself.

## Evidence Confidence
- **inferred** — no patch is planned. The profile’s `perf_ctx_enable` attribution conflicts with the sleeping state and timed `pselect6` calls, and does not identify which process path consumed CPU.
- Before considering a source patch, collect a language-level trace and correlate CPU samples with the listener versus request/plugin children. Do not claim the issue is reproduced based on the current bundle.

## Proposed Subject
- No patch subject yet; diagnose the discrepancy between the CPU profile and the blocking listener trace.

## Patch Plan
- No source edits in this pass. `lib/Munin/Node/Server.pm` delegates the listener loop to `Net::Server::Fork`; `lib/Munin/Node/OS.pm` also has a blocking child-output `select`, but the evidence does not connect that code to the reported CPU.
- If later evidence identifies a Munin defect, follow `HACKING.pod`’s explicit guidance to base bug fixes on `stable-2.0`. This checkout has only a synthetic baseline and no upstream remote/history, so the upstream merge base cannot be determined locally.
- Follow `CONTRIBUTING.md` and `HACKING.pod` for style. No relevant local wrapper for the listener’s external polling loop was found; existing Munin process helpers are in `Munin::Node::OS` and `Munin::Common::Timeout`.
- No prior Fixer patch exists in this workspace to improve or replace; avoid speculative changes or awkward control flow.

## Risks
- Changing the two-second poll without proof could alter listener/signal handling while leaving the actual CPU cause untouched.
- The evidence is indirect: it does not tie CPU samples to Munin source, prove a busy loop, or demonstrate a runtime bug.

## Validation
- First run project-level `make` from the workspace root, then `make check` only if available. The Makefile defines `test`, not `check`; if the build succeeds, run `make test` before any focused compile or smoke check.
- For a bounded independent attempt, collect process state and a short syscall trace on the affected `munin-node` process, if safely accessible: `ps -p <pid> -o pid,stat,pcpu,etime,wchan,args`, then `timeout 5s strace -f -tt -T -p <pid> -e trace=pselect6,select,poll,ppoll`. This may clarify the syscall cadence but cannot by itself establish the CPU cause; a language-level stack/profile is still needed.
- No tests or reproduction were run during this planning pass.

## Patch Pass

Subject: Diagnose Munin node profile without speculative source changes

## Commit Message
Fixer’s profile flags a likely busy poll, but the supporting trace shows `munin-node` sleeping in timed `pselect6` calls, not repeatedly waking without blocking. The available evidence does not connect the reported CPU samples to a Munin code path, so this proposal makes no source change.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
Fixer observed `perf_ctx_enable` as 100% of sampled CPU, while the captured `/proc` state reports the process sleeping and `strace` shows `pselect6` timing out after about 1.8 and 2 seconds. The `script/munin-node` entrypoint delegates its listener to `Munin::Node::Server`, which inherits from `Net::Server::Fork`; the observed syscall cadence is consistent with periodic listener polling, but does not explain the CPU attribution or establish a Munin busy loop. The original process was unavailable for an independent trace, and attaching `strace` was blocked by ptrace permissions. Without evidence tying CPU use to Munin source, a code change would be speculative; no source diff is included.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` failed at `Build.PL` because `Module::Build` is missing. The Makefile has no `check` target; it defines `test`.
- Narrow checks passed: `perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node` and `perl -Ilib -c lib/Munin/Node/Server.pm`. A first entrypoint compile without `-T` failed because the script requires taint mode.
- Independent reproduction attempt: `ps -p 3947104 -o pid,stat,pcpu,etime,wchan,args` found no process; `timeout 5s strace -f -tt -T -p 3947104 -e trace=pselect6,select,poll,ppoll` could not attach (`Operation not permitted`). The signal was not reproduced.
- The listener loop is delegated to `Net::Server::Fork`; no relevant local Munin helper was found that would change that loop. `HACKING.pod` directs bug-fix patches to `stable-2.0`; no patch or merge base was prepared.

## Review Pass 1



## Workflow Note

{"type":"item.completed","item":{"id":"item_6","type":"reasoning","text":"**Reviewing listener polling behavior**"}}
{"type":"error","message":"Reconnecting... 1/5 (stream disconnected before completion: Upstream websocket closed before response.completed: Upstream websocket receive failed)"}
{"type":"error","message":"Reconnecting... 2/5 (unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: be5c6ebd-0dc8-4347-aeb7-7b0e4e0588bb)"}
{"type":"error","message":"Reconnecting... 3/5 (unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: 1211860f-742b-4e6d-8521-6f13ae5434e7)"}
{"type":"error","message":"Reconnecting... 4/5 (unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: 169146a1-3029-49b9-8d9b-02c5d7355756)"}
{"type":"error","message":"Reconnecting... 5/5 (unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: bf14e480-7887-4be1-b58a-6f7317e7c7bd)"}
{"type":"error","message":"unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: ebd89b5b-deb2-41e8-a78b-de981596ea17"}
{"type":"turn.failed","error":{"message":"unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: ebd89b5b-deb2-41e8-a78b-de981596ea17"}}

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Codex suba

[truncated 15284 bytes]

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem
- Fixer reported likely high CPU for `munin-node`, but the evidence does not establish a busy loop: the process was sleeping in `pselect6`, and all three captured calls timed out after roughly 1.8–2 seconds.
- The script entrypoint starts `Munin::Node::Server`, which subclasses `Net::Server::Fork`; its accept wait is dependency-owned, not an identified Munin loop.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Proposed Subject
- No source patch proposed; diagnose the reported CPU signal before attributing it to Munin.

## Patch Plan
- No edits in this pass. The current evidence does not connect the sampled kernel activity to a Munin source defect, and a change to the inherited server loop would be speculative.
- Collect another bounded sample of the same workload, recording CPU usage alongside `ps` state and `strace` wait durations; capture a Perl-level stack if CPU use remains high. Only consider a Munin patch if those observations identify a Munin-owned loop.
- Follow `HACKING.pod`: bug fixes target `stable-2.0`; the workspace is on `master`. If later evidence supports a source fix, base it on `stable-2.0` per that guidance. No relevant Munin-local event-loop helper was found; the accept loop is delegated to `Net::Server::Fork`/`IO::Select`. Avoid overriding that loop without evidence and regression coverage.

## Risks
- The profiler summary labels this a busy poll, but the captured syscall sample shows timed waits and does not independently demonstrate sustained CPU consumption.
- A Munin-side workaround could mask a Perl, `Net::Server`, or kernel/runtime issue without addressing its cause.

## Validation
- No tests or reproduction were run in this planning pass. First try the project-level `make` from the workspace root; if dependencies or generated files prevent it, record the exact command and failure, then try `make check` if available. The Makefile defines `make test` rather than a `check` target.
- For the failure signal, take one bounded repeat sample of `munin-node` CPU, process state, syscall waits, and—if still active—language-level stack before proposing or claiming a fix.

## Patch Pass

Subject: Diagnose munin-node CPU report without source changes

## Commit Message
The available trace does not establish a Munin busy loop. It shows `munin-node` sleeping in timed `pselect6` calls, while the profiler attributes samples to a kernel symbol. Without a repeatable failure tied to Munin code, a source change would be speculative.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
Fixer recorded a likely busy-poll signal for the Perl `munin-node` process, but the captured `pselect6` calls time out after roughly 1.8–2 seconds and `/proc` reports the process sleeping. The entrypoint delegates its server loop to `Net::Server::Fork`/`IO::Select`; Munin also uses `select` while collecting plugin output. The available evidence does not identify which wait produced the trace or show rapid userspace iterations, so it does not establish a Munin code defect. I made no source change. The next step is to collect a contemporaneous CPU, syscall, and Perl-level stack sample from the affected process before assigning ownership.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` — failed because `Module::Build` is missing: `Can't locate Module/Build.pm`; make stopped at `Makefile:149`.
- `make check` — unavailable: `No rule to make target 'check'`.
- `perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node` — passed (`syntax OK`).
- Bounded repeat check: `ps -p 3947104 -o pid,stat,pcpu,etime,wchan,args` found no process for the recorded PID, so the incident could not be independently reproduced. No source files were changed.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: fix-needed

## Findings
- `## Issue Connection` should include the profile’s `total_cpu_percent` and `max_cpu_percent` values (both 0.9%) alongside the profiler’s 100% sample attribution to `perf_ctx_enable`. These measurements conflict with the “runaway CPU” label and materially support the cautious no-patch diagnosis; omitting them leaves the core signal incomplete. No source diff is present, and the remaining diagnosis and validation claims are consistent with the available evidence.

## Refinement Pass 1

Subject: Clarify munin-node CPU evidence without source changes

## Commit Message
Clarify the diagnosis with the profile’s process-level CPU measurements. The trace does not establish a Munin busy loop, so no source patch is proposed.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
Fixer reported a likely busy-poll signal for `munin-node`. The profile reports 0.9% total and maximum CPU during its three-second sample, while attributing 100% of sampled CPU to the kernel symbol `perf_ctx_enable`. The process was sleeping, and the captured `pselect6` calls waited roughly 1.8 and 2 seconds before timing out. `Munin::Node::Server` delegates its accept loop to `Net::Server::Fork`; the evidence does not identify which wait produced the trace or establish a Munin code defect. I made no source change. The expected effect of this refinement is to make the low measured CPU and the profiler attribution clear together, avoiding a speculative upstream fix.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` — failed because `Module::Build` is missing (`Can't locate Module/Build.pm` at `Build.PL` line 80; make stopped at `Makefile:149`).
- `make check` — unavailable (`No rule to make target 'check'`).
- `perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node` — passed (`syntax OK`).
- Bounded repeat check: `ps -p 3947104 -o pid,stat,pcpu,etime,wchan,args` found no process for the recorded PID, so independent reproduction was blocked.
- No relevant Munin-local event-loop helper was found; the server accept wait is dependency-owned. `HACKING.pod` says bug-fix patches target `stable-2.0`; no branch-base change applies because this is a no-patch diagnosis.

## Review Pass 2

RESULT: ok

The refinement addresses the review finding by including both 0.9% process CPU measurements and distinguishing them from the 100% sampled attribution to `perf_ctx_enable`. Evidence confidence remains `inferred`, appropriately, and the response proposes no source diff. Validation reports the project-level build blocker, the unavailable `make check` target, the syntax check, and why the recorded process could not be sampled again. The worktree is clean.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Codex suba

[truncated 15284 bytes]

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem
- Fixer reported likely high CPU for `munin-node`, but the evidence does not establish a busy loop: the process was sleeping in `pselect6`, and all three captured calls timed out after roughly 1.8–2 seconds.
- The script entrypoint starts `Munin::Node::Server`, which subclasses `Net::Server::Fork`; its accept wait is dependency-owned, not an identified Munin loop.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Proposed Subject
- No source patch proposed; diagnose the reported CPU signal before attributing it to Munin.

## Patch Plan
- No edits in this pass. The current evidence does not connect the sampled kernel activity to a Munin source defect, and a change to the inherited server loop would be speculative.
- Collect another bounded sample of the same workload, recording CPU usage alongside `ps` state and `strace` wait durations; capture a Perl-level stack if CPU use remains high. Only consider a Munin patch if those observations identify a Munin-owned loop.
- Follow `HACKING.pod`: bug fixes target `stable-2.0`; the workspace is on `master`. If later evidence supports a source fix, base it on `stable-2.0` per that guidance. No relevant Munin-local event-loop helper was found; the accept loop is delegated to `Net::Server::Fork`/`IO::Select`. Avoid overriding that loop without evidence and regression coverage.

## Risks
- The profiler summary labels this a busy poll, but the captured syscall sample shows timed waits and does not independently demonstrate sustained CPU consumption.
- A Munin-side workaround could mask a Perl, `Net::Server`, or kernel/runtime issue without addressing its cause.

## Validation
- No tests or reproduction were run in this planning pass. First try the project-level `make` from the workspace root; if dependencies or generated files prevent it, record the exact command and failure, then try `make check` if available. The Makefile defines `make test` rather than a `check` target.
- For the failure signal, take one bounded repeat sample of `munin-node` CPU, process state, syscall waits, and—if still active—language-level stack before proposing or claiming a fix.

## Patch Pass

Subject: Diagnose munin-node CPU report without source changes

## Commit Message
The available trace does not establish a Munin busy loop. It shows `munin-node` sleeping in timed `pselect6` calls, while the profiler attributes samples to a kernel symbol. Without a repeatable failure tied to Munin code, a source change would be speculative.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
Fixer recorded a likely busy-poll signal for the Perl `munin-node` process, but the captured `pselect6` calls time out after roughly 1.8–2 seconds and `/proc` reports the process sleeping. The entrypoint delegates its server loop to `Net::Server::Fork`/`IO::Select`; Munin also uses `select` while collecting plugin output. The available evidence does not identify which wait produced the trace or show rapid userspace iterations, so it does not establish a Munin code defect. I made no source change. The next step is to collect a contemporaneous CPU, syscall, and Perl-level stack sample from the affected process before assigning ownership.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` — failed because `Module::Build` is missing: `Can't locate Module/Build.pm`; make stopped at `Makefile:149`.
- `make check` — unavailable: `No rule to make target 'check'`.
- `perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node` — passed (`syntax OK`).
- Bounded repeat check: `ps -p 3947104 -o pid,stat,pcpu,etime,wchan,args` found no process for the recorded PID, so the incident could not be independently reproduced. No source files were changed.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: fix-needed

## Findings
- `## Issue Connection` should include the profile’s `total_cpu_percent` and `max_cpu_percent` values (both 0.9%) alongside the profiler’s 100% sample attribution to `perf_ctx_enable`. These measurements conflict with the “runaway CPU” label and materially support the cautious no-patch diagnosis; omitting them leaves the core signal incomplete. No source diff is present, and the remaining diagnosis and validation claims are consistent with the available evidence.

## Refinement Pass 1

Subject: Clarify munin-node CPU evidence without source changes

## Commit Message
Clarify the diagnosis with the profile’s process-level CPU measurements. The trace does not establish a Munin busy loop, so no source patch is proposed.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
Fixer reported a likely busy-poll signal for `munin-node`. The profile reports 0.9% total and maximum CPU during its three-second sample, while attributing 100% of sampled CPU to the kernel symbol `perf_ctx_enable`. The process was sleeping, and the captured `pselect6` calls waited roughly 1.8 and 2 seconds before timing out. `Munin::Node::Server` delegates its accept loop to `Net::Server::Fork`; the evidence does not identify which wait produced the trace or establish a Munin code defect. I made no source change. The expected effect of this refinement is to make the low measured CPU and the profiler attribution clear together, avoiding a speculative upstream fix.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` — failed because `Module::Build` is missing (`Can't locate Module/Build.pm` at `Build.PL` line 80; make stopped at `Makefile:149`).
- `make check` — unavailable (`No rule to make target 'check'`).
- `perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node` — passed (`syntax OK`).
- Bounded repeat check: `ps -p 3947104 -o pid,stat,pcpu,etime,wchan,args` found no process for the recorded PID, so independent reproduction was blocked.
- No relevant Munin-local event-loop helper was found; the server accept wait is dependency-owned. `HACKING.pod` says bug-fix patches target `stable-2.0`; no branch-base change applies because this is a no-patch diagnosis.

## Review Pass 2

RESULT: ok

The refinement addresses the review finding by including both 0.9% process CPU measurements and distinguishing them from the 100% sampled attribution to `perf_ctx_enable`. Evidence confidence remains `inferred`, appropriately, and the response proposes no source diff. Validation reports the project-level build blocker, the unavailable `make check` target, the syntax check, and why the recorded process could not be sampled again. The worktree is clean.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Codex suba

[truncated 15284 bytes]

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem
- Fixer observed `munin-node` in a likely busy-poll state, with repeated `pselect6` calls. The trace does not identify a Munin call site, so the root cause remains unconfirmed.
- A plausible application-side candidate is `Munin::Node::OS::_read_from_child`: it watches plugin stdout and stderr with `select()`, then `sysread()`s ready descriptors. If one pipe reaches EOF while the other remains open, the EOF descriptor stays in the read set and may keep `select()` returning immediately. `run_as_child()` invokes this reader while waiting for plugins.

## Evidence Confidence
- **inferred** — the pipe EOF path is a source-level hypothesis consistent with the poll signal, not an independently reproduced cause. Do not present it as the confirmed incident fix.

## Proposed Subject
- Diagnose possible plugin-pipe EOF polling in `munin-node`.

## Patch Plan
- No patch yet. Before editing, run a bounded test of `_read_from_child` with stdout closed and stderr held open briefly; verify whether the reader spins, then confirm whether that condition can occur in the plugin execution path.
- If validated, consider a focused change that removes EOF descriptors from the read set and add a regression test for the pipe lifecycle. Avoid broader daemon/runtime changes.
- No dedicated select or pipe-I/O helper was found; follow the existing `Munin::Node::OS` conventions. Tests use `Test::Class`/`Test::More`; no focused OS pipe-reader test exists.
- No prior Fixer patch needs replacement. `HACKING.pod` directs bug fixes to `stable-2.0`; `README.rst` also mentions `master` for PRs. Follow the explicit bug-fix branch guidance if a patch is later warranted.

## Risks
- The evidence may reflect another plugin, process, or runtime path; a source-level match alone does not establish incident causality.
- Changing child-pipe handling could affect output collection and timeout behavior, so test both normal output and EOF/timeout cases.

## Validation
- From the workspace root, try `make` first. `make check` is not an available target; the project documents `perl Build.PL` followed by `./Build test`, and the Makefile provides `make test`.
- Make one bounded candidate-mechanism reproduction using a temporary harness outside the repository: close one pipe, hold the other open briefly, and observe whether `_read_from_child` spins. This tests the hypothesized mechanism, not the production incident. If a source change is later justified, add a focused regression test and run the project-level build/test entrypoint before any leaf compile.

## Patch Pass

Subject: Diagnose munin-node polling evidence before changing source

## Commit Message
No source change. The available evidence does not confirm a runaway CPU loop, so a speculative Munin fix would not be upstream-ready.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
Fixer’s trace attributes samples to the kernel symbol `perf_ctx_enable`, but the accompanying details show three `pselect6` calls timing out after roughly 1.8–2 seconds, a sleeping process state, and `poll_schedule_timeout` as its wait channel. That points to blocking waits, not a demonstrated tight loop; the evidence does not identify a Munin cause.

I checked `Munin::Node::OS::_read_from_child` as a candidate. When a pipe read returns EOF or an error, the code falls through and exits the loop rather than repeatedly selecting on that descriptor. The candidate therefore does not explain the collected signal, and I made no source change.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` failed because `Module::Build` is missing: `Can't locate Module/Build.pm` at `Build.PL` line 80.
- `make check` failed because the Makefile has no `check` target. The documented test flow is `perl Build.PL` followed by `./Build test`, but the missing dependency blocks it.
- `perl -c lib/Munin/Node/OS.pm` reported syntax OK, with subroutine redefinition warnings.
- The captured PID `3947104` was no longer present, so the incident could not be independently traced. A bounded local pipe-reader check waited 0.3 seconds and measured `0.000074` parent CPU seconds; it did not reproduce a busy loop. The `strace` attempt was blocked by `PTRACE_TRACEME: Operation not permitted`.
- No relevant select wrapper was found. `HACKING.pod` says bug fixes target `stable-2.0`; no patch was prepared, so no branch base was selected.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: fix-needed

## Findings
- `## Validation` reports a bounded pipe-reader check and a `strace` attempt without giving their exact commands. Include the reproduction command and inputs so reviewers can verify the reported CPU measurement and ptrace blocker. The no-patch diagnosis is otherwise supported: the evidence shows timed `pselect6` waits and a sleeping process, but no confirmed Munin source defect.

## Refinement Pass 1

Subject: Diagnose munin-node polling evidence before changing source

## Commit Message
No source change. The review requested exact commands for the bounded checks; this response provides them. The evidence still does not justify a speculative Munin fix.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
The evidence bundle reports `pselect6` activity, but two captured calls end in timeouts after 1.815530 and 2.002044 seconds; the third is truncated. The process was sleeping in `poll_schedule_timeout`. This suggests blocking waits, not a demonstrated tight loop, and the trace does not identify a Munin call site.

I checked `Munin::Node::OS::_read_from_child` as a candidate. EOF or a read error exits its loop rather than repeatedly selecting on that descriptor, so it does not explain the reported signal. No source change was made; the expected effect is to avoid proposing an unsupported upstream fix.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` failed because `Module::Build` is missing: `Can't locate Module/Build.pm` at `Build.PL` line 80. `make check` failed because there is no `check` target.
- `perl -c lib/Munin/Node/OS.pm` reported syntax OK, with subroutine redefinition warnings.
- Bounded pipe-reader check: `timeout 3s perl -Ilib -MMunin::Node::OS -MTime::HiRes=clock_gettime,CLOCK_PROCESS_CPUTIME_ID -e 'pipe(my $out_read, my $out_write) or die $!; pipe(my $err_read, my $err_write) or die $!; my $pid = fork(); die $! unless defined $pid; if (!$pid) { close $out_read; close $err_read; select undef, undef, undef, 0.3; close $out_write; close $err_write; exit 0; } close $out_write; close $err_write; my $before = clock_gettime(CLOCK_PROCESS_CPUTIME_ID); Munin::Node::OS->_read_from_child($out_read, $err_read); my $cpu = clock_gettime(CLOCK_PROCESS_CPUTIME_ID) - $before; waitpid($pid, 0); printf "parent CPU seconds during pipe wait: %.6f\n", $cpu;'` completed with `0.000067` parent CPU seconds. This checks the candidate pipe-wait behavior; it does not reproduce the production incident.
- The bounded `strace` attempt, `strace -f -ttT -e trace=pselect6 perl -Ilib -MMunin::Node::OS -e 'pipe(my $out_read, my $out_write) or die $!; pipe(my $err_read, my $err_write) or die $!; my $pid = fork(); die $! unless defined $pid; if (!$pid) { close $out_read; close $err_read; select undef, undef, undef, 0.3; close $out_write; close $err_write; exit 0; } close $out_write; close $err_write; Munin::Node::OS->_read_from_child($out_read, $err_read); waitpid($pid, 0);'`, was blocked by `PTRACE_TRACEME: Operation not permitted`. The captured PID was no longer present.
- No relevant select wrapper was found. `HACKING.pod` directs bug fixes to `stable-2.0`; no source patch or branch base was prepared.

## Review Pass 2

RESULT: ok

The refinement provides the exact bounded-check commands and results. The no-patch diagnosis remains appropriately cautious; the worktree has no source changes.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Codex suba

[truncated 15284 bytes]

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem
- Fixer observed `munin-node` in a likely busy-poll state, with repeated `pselect6` calls. The trace does not identify a Munin call site, so the root cause remains unconfirmed.
- A plausible application-side candidate is `Munin::Node::OS::_read_from_child`: it watches plugin stdout and stderr with `select()`, then `sysread()`s ready descriptors. If one pipe reaches EOF while the other remains open, the EOF descriptor stays in the read set and may keep `select()` returning immediately. `run_as_child()` invokes this reader while waiting for plugins.

## Evidence Confidence
- **inferred** — the pipe EOF path is a source-level hypothesis consistent with the poll signal, not an independently reproduced cause. Do not present it as the confirmed incident fix.

## Proposed Subject
- Diagnose possible plugin-pipe EOF polling in `munin-node`.

## Patch Plan
- No patch yet. Before editing, run a bounded test of `_read_from_child` with stdout closed and stderr held open briefly; verify whether the reader spins, then confirm whether that condition can occur in the plugin execution path.
- If validated, consider a focused change that removes EOF descriptors from the read set and add a regression test for the pipe lifecycle. Avoid broader daemon/runtime changes.
- No dedicated select or pipe-I/O helper was found; follow the existing `Munin::Node::OS` conventions. Tests use `Test::Class`/`Test::More`; no focused OS pipe-reader test exists.
- No prior Fixer patch needs replacement. `HACKING.pod` directs bug fixes to `stable-2.0`; `README.rst` also mentions `master` for PRs. Follow the explicit bug-fix branch guidance if a patch is later warranted.

## Risks
- The evidence may reflect another plugin, process, or runtime path; a source-level match alone does not establish incident causality.
- Changing child-pipe handling could affect output collection and timeout behavior, so test both normal output and EOF/timeout cases.

## Validation
- From the workspace root, try `make` first. `make check` is not an available target; the project documents `perl Build.PL` followed by `./Build test`, and the Makefile provides `make test`.
- Make one bounded candidate-mechanism reproduction using a temporary harness outside the repository: close one pipe, hold the other open briefly, and observe whether `_read_from_child` spins. This tests the hypothesized mechanism, not the production incident. If a source change is later justified, add a focused regression test and run the project-level build/test entrypoint before any leaf compile.

## Patch Pass

Subject: Diagnose munin-node polling evidence before changing source

## Commit Message
No source change. The available evidence does not confirm a runaway CPU loop, so a speculative Munin fix would not be upstream-ready.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
Fixer’s trace attributes samples to the kernel symbol `perf_ctx_enable`, but the accompanying details show three `pselect6` calls timing out after roughly 1.8–2 seconds, a sleeping process state, and `poll_schedule_timeout` as its wait channel. That points to blocking waits, not a demonstrated tight loop; the evidence does not identify a Munin cause.

I checked `Munin::Node::OS::_read_from_child` as a candidate. When a pipe read returns EOF or an error, the code falls through and exits the loop rather than repeatedly selecting on that descriptor. The candidate therefore does not explain the collected signal, and I made no source change.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` failed because `Module::Build` is missing: `Can't locate Module/Build.pm` at `Build.PL` line 80.
- `make check` failed because the Makefile has no `check` target. The documented test flow is `perl Build.PL` followed by `./Build test`, but the missing dependency blocks it.
- `perl -c lib/Munin/Node/OS.pm` reported syntax OK, with subroutine redefinition warnings.
- The captured PID `3947104` was no longer present, so the incident could not be independently traced. A bounded local pipe-reader check waited 0.3 seconds and measured `0.000074` parent CPU seconds; it did not reproduce a busy loop. The `strace` attempt was blocked by `PTRACE_TRACEME: Operation not permitted`.
- No relevant select wrapper was found. `HACKING.pod` says bug fixes target `stable-2.0`; no patch was prepared, so no branch base was selected.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: fix-needed

## Findings
- `## Validation` reports a bounded pipe-reader check and a `strace` attempt without giving their exact commands. Include the reproduction command and inputs so reviewers can verify the reported CPU measurement and ptrace blocker. The no-patch diagnosis is otherwise supported: the evidence shows timed `pselect6` waits and a sleeping process, but no confirmed Munin source defect.

## Refinement Pass 1

Subject: Diagnose munin-node polling evidence before changing source

## Commit Message
No source change. The review requested exact commands for the bounded checks; this response provides them. The evidence still does not justify a speculative Munin fix.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
The evidence bundle reports `pselect6` activity, but two captured calls end in timeouts after 1.815530 and 2.002044 seconds; the third is truncated. The process was sleeping in `poll_schedule_timeout`. This suggests blocking waits, not a demonstrated tight loop, and the trace does not identify a Munin call site.

I checked `Munin::Node::OS::_read_from_child` as a candidate. EOF or a read error exits its loop rather than repeatedly selecting on that descriptor, so it does not explain the reported signal. No source change was made; the expected effect is to avoid proposing an unsupported upstream fix.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` failed because `Module::Build` is missing: `Can't locate Module/Build.pm` at `Build.PL` line 80. `make check` failed because there is no `check` target.
- `perl -c lib/Munin/Node/OS.pm` reported syntax OK, with subroutine redefinition warnings.
- Bounded pipe-reader check: `timeout 3s perl -Ilib -MMunin::Node::OS -MTime::HiRes=clock_gettime,CLOCK_PROCESS_CPUTIME_ID -e 'pipe(my $out_read, my $out_write) or die $!; pipe(my $err_read, my $err_write) or die $!; my $pid = fork(); die $! unless defined $pid; if (!$pid) { close $out_read; close $err_read; select undef, undef, undef, 0.3; close $out_write; close $err_write; exit 0; } close $out_write; close $err_write; my $before = clock_gettime(CLOCK_PROCESS_CPUTIME_ID); Munin::Node::OS->_read_from_child($out_read, $err_read); my $cpu = clock_gettime(CLOCK_PROCESS_CPUTIME_ID) - $before; waitpid($pid, 0); printf "parent CPU seconds during pipe wait: %.6f\n", $cpu;'` completed with `0.000067` parent CPU seconds. This checks the candidate pipe-wait behavior; it does not reproduce the production incident.
- The bounded `strace` attempt, `strace -f -ttT -e trace=pselect6 perl -Ilib -MMunin::Node::OS -e 'pipe(my $out_read, my $out_write) or die $!; pipe(my $err_read, my $err_write) or die $!; my $pid = fork(); die $! unless defined $pid; if (!$pid) { close $out_read; close $err_read; select undef, undef, undef, 0.3; close $out_write; close $err_write; exit 0; } close $out_write; close $err_write; Munin::Node::OS->_read_from_child($out_read, $err_read); waitpid($pid, 0);'`, was blocked by `PTRACE_TRACEME: Operation not permitted`. The captured PID was no longer present.
- No relevant select wrapper was found. `HACKING.pod` directs bug fixes to `stable-2.0`; no source patch or branch base was prepared.

## Review Pass 2

RESULT: ok

The refinement provides the exact bounded-check commands and results. The no-patch diagnosis remains appropriately cautious; the worktree has no source changes.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Codex suba

[truncated 3140 bytes]

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem
- Fixer flags `munin-node` as a likely busy-poll CPU issue, but the captured evidence does not establish a source-level failure. The trace shows `pselect6` calls timing out after roughly 1.8–2 seconds, and the sampled hot symbol is in the kernel. The local server event loop is inherited from external `Net::Server::Fork`.

## Evidence Confidence
- **inferred**
- No patch is proposed. The evidence does not tie CPU use to a Munin code path; the entrypoint and event-loop inspection also did not reveal a confirmed defect. Before considering a patch, collect process CPU/wait-channel data alongside a language-level stack or trace that identifies the running Munin path.

## Proposed Subject
- No source patch planned; diagnose the reported CPU signal first.

## Patch Plan
- Report the evidence gap rather than changing code or blaming Perl/the kernel. The entrypoint calls `Munin::Node::Server->run` from `script/munin-node`; plugin execution and IO paths have explicit timeouts, but the trace does not implicate them.
- No prior Fixer patch was found in the workspace to replace or improve.
- No relevant Munin-local event-loop helper was found; the server loop comes from `Net::Server::Fork`. If later evidence supports a source change, follow the Perl conventions in `HACKING.pod` (`strict`, warnings, file-consistent indentation, one statement per line) and prefer a bounded alternative over avoidable `goto`.
- Upstream guidance says bug fixes target `stable-2.0`; use that base if a confirmed bug fix emerges. The workspace is on `master` with no configured remotes, so it does not independently establish an upstream base.

## Risks
- A speculative change to polling, timeout, or connection handling could alter node behavior without addressing the kernel-attributed samples. The current evidence does not justify that risk.

## Validation
- For a no-patch diagnosis, no build or test is needed. If a source patch is later supported by new evidence, first try root-level `make`, then `make test`; `make test` generates build artifacts and some integration tests fork processes and wait. If dependencies or generated files block those commands, record the exact failure before attempting a focused compile or test.
- Make one bounded, independent reproduction attempt by collecting the running process’s CPU, state, elapsed time, wait channel, and arguments, then correlating a short syscall trace with a Perl-level stack. Do not claim reproduction unless that attempt demonstrates the reported failure.

## Patch Pass

Subject: Diagnose munin-node CPU signal before proposing a patch

## Commit Message
No source change. The available trace does not establish a Munin code defect: the captured process is sleeping in kernel `pselect6` calls that time out after about 1.8–2 seconds. Its stack is entirely in the kernel’s polling path, and the sampled hot symbol is `perf_ctx_enable`.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
Fixer collected a likely busy-poll classification for `munin-node`, but the supporting evidence shows the process sleeping in timed waits; it does not connect CPU consumption to a Munin code path. The entrypoint `script/munin-node` calls `Munin::Node::Server->run`, whose accept loop is inherited from external `Net::Server::Fork`. I found no local code cause to fix, so I made no source change. The expected effect of this diagnosis is to avoid an unsupported change to server polling or timeout behavior. A useful upstream report should include fresh process CPU/wait-channel data and a language-level stack or trace tied to the reported CPU usage.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` — failed because `Module::Build` is missing (`Can't locate Module/Build.pm`).
- `make test` — failed for the same missing dependency while generating `./Build`.
- No `make check` target is defined in the root `Makefile`.
- Focused syntax checks passed: `perl -Ilib -c lib/Munin/Node/Server.pm` and `perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node`.
- Bounded reproduction attempt: `ps -p 3947104 -o pid,stat,pcpu,etime,wchan,args` found no process for the captured PID, so the reported signal could not be independently reproduced.
- Munin’s contribution guidance says bug fixes target `stable-2.0`; no source change is proposed, and the workspace has no configured upstream remote to verify a merge-request base. No relevant local helper for the inherited event loop was found.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: ok

The first pass is a no-patch diagnosis, which is appropriate: the evidence shows `munin-node` sleeping in timed `pselect6` calls, but does not tie CPU use to a Munin source path. The report correctly uses `inferred`, avoids claiming reproduction, and records the missing `Module::Build` blocker plus focused syntax checks. The worktree is clean; no changes are needed.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Codex suba

[truncated 3140 bytes]

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem
- Fixer flags `munin-node` as a likely busy-poll CPU issue, but the captured evidence does not establish a source-level failure. The trace shows `pselect6` calls timing out after roughly 1.8–2 seconds, and the sampled hot symbol is in the kernel. The local server event loop is inherited from external `Net::Server::Fork`.

## Evidence Confidence
- **inferred**
- No patch is proposed. The evidence does not tie CPU use to a Munin code path; the entrypoint and event-loop inspection also did not reveal a confirmed defect. Before considering a patch, collect process CPU/wait-channel data alongside a language-level stack or trace that identifies the running Munin path.

## Proposed Subject
- No source patch planned; diagnose the reported CPU signal first.

## Patch Plan
- Report the evidence gap rather than changing code or blaming Perl/the kernel. The entrypoint calls `Munin::Node::Server->run` from `script/munin-node`; plugin execution and IO paths have explicit timeouts, but the trace does not implicate them.
- No prior Fixer patch was found in the workspace to replace or improve.
- No relevant Munin-local event-loop helper was found; the server loop comes from `Net::Server::Fork`. If later evidence supports a source change, follow the Perl conventions in `HACKING.pod` (`strict`, warnings, file-consistent indentation, one statement per line) and prefer a bounded alternative over avoidable `goto`.
- Upstream guidance says bug fixes target `stable-2.0`; use that base if a confirmed bug fix emerges. The workspace is on `master` with no configured remotes, so it does not independently establish an upstream base.

## Risks
- A speculative change to polling, timeout, or connection handling could alter node behavior without addressing the kernel-attributed samples. The current evidence does not justify that risk.

## Validation
- For a no-patch diagnosis, no build or test is needed. If a source patch is later supported by new evidence, first try root-level `make`, then `make test`; `make test` generates build artifacts and some integration tests fork processes and wait. If dependencies or generated files block those commands, record the exact failure before attempting a focused compile or test.
- Make one bounded, independent reproduction attempt by collecting the running process’s CPU, state, elapsed time, wait channel, and arguments, then correlating a short syscall trace with a Perl-level stack. Do not claim reproduction unless that attempt demonstrates the reported failure.

## Patch Pass

Subject: Diagnose munin-node CPU signal before proposing a patch

## Commit Message
No source change. The available trace does not establish a Munin code defect: the captured process is sleeping in kernel `pselect6` calls that time out after about 1.8–2 seconds. Its stack is entirely in the kernel’s polling path, and the sampled hot symbol is `perf_ctx_enable`.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
Fixer collected a likely busy-poll classification for `munin-node`, but the supporting evidence shows the process sleeping in timed waits; it does not connect CPU consumption to a Munin code path. The entrypoint `script/munin-node` calls `Munin::Node::Server->run`, whose accept loop is inherited from external `Net::Server::Fork`. I found no local code cause to fix, so I made no source change. The expected effect of this diagnosis is to avoid an unsupported change to server polling or timeout behavior. A useful upstream report should include fresh process CPU/wait-channel data and a language-level stack or trace tied to the reported CPU usage.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` — failed because `Module::Build` is missing (`Can't locate Module/Build.pm`).
- `make test` — failed for the same missing dependency while generating `./Build`.
- No `make check` target is defined in the root `Makefile`.
- Focused syntax checks passed: `perl -Ilib -c lib/Munin/Node/Server.pm` and `perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node`.
- Bounded reproduction attempt: `ps -p 3947104 -o pid,stat,pcpu,etime,wchan,args` found no process for the captured PID, so the reported signal could not be independently reproduced.
- Munin’s contribution guidance says bug fixes target `stable-2.0`; no source change is proposed, and the workspace has no configured upstream remote to verify a merge-request base. No relevant local helper for the inherited event loop was found.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: ok

The first pass is a no-patch diagnosis, which is appropriate: the evidence shows `munin-node` sleeping in timed `pselect6` calls, but does not tie CPU use to a Munin source path. The report correctly uses `inferred`, avoids claiming reproduction, and records the missing `Module::Build` blocker plus focused syntax checks. The worktree is clean; no changes are needed.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem
Fixer flags `/usr/bin/perl -wT /usr/sbin/munin-node --foreground` for likely busy polling. The bundle has only three `pselect6` samples and a kernel hot symbol; it does not connect those samples to a Munin source location. The script delegates its server loop to `Munin::Node::Server`, which inherits its listener from `Net::Server::Fork`; its request read uses blocking input.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

Plan a no-patch diagnosis. Before considering edits, collect a language-level stack or trace tied to the entrypoint and independently confirm sustained CPU use under the same workload. The bundle alone does not prove a Munin or Perl runtime bug, so don’t present a speculative change as a fix.

## Proposed Subject
No source patch proposed; gather evidence to identify the process behavior.

## Patch Plan
- No source files or prior Fixer patch should be changed or replaced.
- `script/munin-node` delegates to `Munin::Node::Server->run`; that server inherits its listener from `Net::Server::Fork` and uses blocking reads in its request path. No local busy-poll loop is established.
- If later evidence ties a defect to Munin, follow the project’s documented bug-fix base, `stable-2.0`. No local event-loop wrapper was found; avoid changing inherited listener behavior without evidence. `HACKING.pod` calls for strict/warnings and file-local style; no awkward control flow is indicated.

## Risks
- A source change now could target the wrong layer: the profiler signal does not distinguish Munin behavior from Perl, `Net::Server::Fork`, or kernel activity.
- The bundle’s limited samples and lack of a source-level stack prevent a defensible maintainer-facing bug explanation.

## Validation
- From the workspace root, try `make` first; there is no root `make check` target. The project documents `perl Build.PL` followed by `./Build test` in `HACKING.pod`; the root Makefile also exposes `make test`. Run a focused leaf compile/test only if the project-level command fails for missing dependencies or generated files.
- Bounded independent check: if the original process is still available, capture `ps -p <pid> -o pid,stat,pcpu,etime,wchan,args` and a short syscall trace of that process to see whether waits block; don’t treat that as reproducing a source bug. The bundle lacks the PID, config, and workload needed for a safe, faithful standalone reproduction.

## Patch Pass



## Workflow Note

{"type":"item.completed","item":{"id":"item_15","type":"reasoning","text":"**Test validation is blocked**"}}
{"type":"error","message":"Reconnecting... 1/5 (stream disconnected before completion: Upstream websocket closed before response.completed: Upstream websocket receive failed)"}
{"type":"error","message":"Reconnecting... 2/5 (unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: 0f634fcb-e717-49dd-b381-1e0afabb1641)"}
{"type":"error","message":"Reconnecting... 3/5 (unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: b3f27849-9b87-41cf-bd62-ca1dfeb6eb9a)"}
{"type":"error","message":"Reconnecting... 4/5 (unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: d3f27d3a-2997-41a0-90d7-7e347ffb511a)"}
{"type":"error","message":"Reconnecting... 5/5 (unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: 1e8bfe20-b1c0-42a4-8eb7-f933417ad3d2)"}
{"type":"error","message":"unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: 59a9d362-2d02-4bbf-9fc6-29557fab124a"}
{"type":"turn.failed","error":{"message":"unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: 59a9d362-2d02-4bbf-9fc6-29557fab124a"}}

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

Response

## Plan Pass



## Workflow Note

{"type":"error","message":"Reconnecting... 2/5 (unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: 327cf688-88fa-4c16-b141-e37c3c0daaf1)"}
{"type":"error","message":"Reconnecting... 3/5 (unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: fe10cc11-2663-48e4-86b0-9dc8e28e4ea4)"}
{"type":"error","message":"Reconnecting... 4/5 (unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: 7fd7c301-226b-46ab-826e-f036bcba3db3)"}
{"type":"error","message":"Reconnecting... 5/5 (unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: 3d927d6c-7861-414b-88de-465fe1a54ddf)"}
{"type":"error","message":"unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: 500f0143-ed7d-4689-bf43-996bbfdc5402"}
{"type":"turn.failed","error":{"message":"unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: 500f0143-ed7d-4689-bf43-996bbfdc5402"}}
2026-09-28T15:33:39.196279Z ERROR codex_core::session: failed to record rollout items: thread 01a0e8a4-8ba5-7f02-a36d-da19b755247d not found
2026-09-28T15:33:39.196297Z ERROR codex_core::session: failed to record rollout items: thread 01a0e8a4-8ba5-7f02-a36d-da19b755247d not found

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Codex suba

[truncated 3140 bytes]

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem
Fixer observed `/usr/bin/perl -wT /usr/sbin/munin-node --foreground` in `pselect6`, but the bundle does not tie those waits to a Munin source location or prove runaway CPU. The process was sleeping, and the captured calls waited for roughly 1.8–2 seconds before timing out. The `perf_ctx_enable` sample identifies a kernel symbol, not a Munin hot loop.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

This supports a no-patch diagnosis, not a confirmed source fix. Before considering a patch, collect CPU-over-time measurements and a Perl-level stack or syscall trace that connects the CPU use to a Munin function and its file descriptors. Do not claim independent reproduction unless that capture demonstrates the reported failure.

## Proposed Subject
Diagnose `munin-node` polling before proposing a CPU or event-loop fix.

## Patch Plan
- Make no source changes on the current evidence.
- The script entrypoint, `script/munin-node`, initializes `Munin::Node::Server->run`; the server subclasses `Net::Server::Fork`, so its main event loop is inherited. `lib/Munin/Node/OS.pm` contains a separate raw `select()` in `_read_from_child`, but the evidence does not implicate it.
- No prior Fixer patch exists to improve or replace. If follow-up evidence identifies local code, use the relevant existing helpers—`Munin::Common::Timeout::do_with_timeout`, `Munin::Node::OS`, and `Munin::Common::Logger`—and the file’s strict/warnings, taint-compatible style. No separate event-loop or `pselect` wrapper was found; avoid adding generic polling logic or awkward `goto` control flow.
- `CONTRIBUTING.md` points to `HACKING.pod`. It says bug-fix patches target `stable-2.0`; use that base if a bug is confirmed and treated as a bug fix. The workspace is currently on `master`.

## Risks
Changing polling or timeout behavior could affect plugin execution and connection handling. The evidence does not distinguish Munin code from `Net::Server::Fork`, Perl, or workload behavior, so a speculative change risks altering normal blocking semantics without addressing the observed process.

## Validation
- From the workspace root, try `make` first; then `make check` if available. The Makefile has no `check` target. `make` builds through `./Build`, generating it via `perl Build.PL` if needed.
- If the project build fails due to missing dependencies or generated files, record the exact command and failure, then try the narrow entrypoint check `perl -c -Ilib script/munin-node`; run the relevant `./Build test` only if build generation succeeds.
- Make one bounded independent check against the affected running node, if available: sample CPU with `ps -p <pid> -o pid,stat,pcpu,etime,wchan,args` and capture a short `strace` of poll-family syscalls. Treat ordinary timed blocking as non-reproduction.

## Patch Pass

Subject: Diagnose munin-node polling before proposing a CPU fix

## Commit Message
No source changes. The available trace does not identify a Munin code path responsible for runaway CPU, so changing polling or timeout behavior would be speculative. Collect a Perl-level trace and CPU-over-time measurements before proposing a fix.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
The collected signal is a `munin-node` process reported as sleeping, with `pselect6` calls timing out after roughly 1.8 and 2 seconds; the profiler’s top symbol is the kernel function `perf_ctx_enable`, not a Munin function. In the source, `script/munin-node` starts `Munin::Node::Server`, whose main loop is inherited from `Net::Server::Fork`; `lib/Munin/Node/OS.pm` has a separate `select()` for reading plugin output, but the evidence does not connect it to the sampled process behavior. I made no source change because the evidence does not establish a code-level cause. The expected effect of this diagnosis is to avoid changing normal blocking behavior until a trace identifies the responsible code path.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` failed while running `perl Build.PL`: `Can't locate Module/Build.pm in @INC`; make exited with error 2.
- `make check` is unavailable; the workspace `Makefile` defines no `check` target.
- `perl -c -Ilib script/munin-node` failed because the script’s shebang uses taint mode; `perl -T -c -Ilib script/munin-node` passed with `syntax OK`.
- Independent reproduction was blocked: `ps -p 3947104 -o pid,stat,pcpu,etime,wchan,args` found no such process in this environment, so no live trace comparison was possible.
- The workspace remains clean on `master`. `HACKING.pod` says bug-fix patches target `stable-2.0`; no relevant local `pselect` wrapper was found.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: ok

The workspace has no source diff, appropriately avoiding a speculative fix based on indirect profiler and `strace` evidence. The report uses `inferred`, does not claim reproduction, explains the connection to Munin’s inherited server loop, and records the `make` blocker and passing taint-aware syntax check. No actionable findings.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Codex suba

[truncated 3140 bytes]

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem
Fixer observed `/usr/bin/perl -wT /usr/sbin/munin-node --foreground` in `pselect6`, but the bundle does not tie those waits to a Munin source location or prove runaway CPU. The process was sleeping, and the captured calls waited for roughly 1.8–2 seconds before timing out. The `perf_ctx_enable` sample identifies a kernel symbol, not a Munin hot loop.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

This supports a no-patch diagnosis, not a confirmed source fix. Before considering a patch, collect CPU-over-time measurements and a Perl-level stack or syscall trace that connects the CPU use to a Munin function and its file descriptors. Do not claim independent reproduction unless that capture demonstrates the reported failure.

## Proposed Subject
Diagnose `munin-node` polling before proposing a CPU or event-loop fix.

## Patch Plan
- Make no source changes on the current evidence.
- The script entrypoint, `script/munin-node`, initializes `Munin::Node::Server->run`; the server subclasses `Net::Server::Fork`, so its main event loop is inherited. `lib/Munin/Node/OS.pm` contains a separate raw `select()` in `_read_from_child`, but the evidence does not implicate it.
- No prior Fixer patch exists to improve or replace. If follow-up evidence identifies local code, use the relevant existing helpers—`Munin::Common::Timeout::do_with_timeout`, `Munin::Node::OS`, and `Munin::Common::Logger`—and the file’s strict/warnings, taint-compatible style. No separate event-loop or `pselect` wrapper was found; avoid adding generic polling logic or awkward `goto` control flow.
- `CONTRIBUTING.md` points to `HACKING.pod`. It says bug-fix patches target `stable-2.0`; use that base if a bug is confirmed and treated as a bug fix. The workspace is currently on `master`.

## Risks
Changing polling or timeout behavior could affect plugin execution and connection handling. The evidence does not distinguish Munin code from `Net::Server::Fork`, Perl, or workload behavior, so a speculative change risks altering normal blocking semantics without addressing the observed process.

## Validation
- From the workspace root, try `make` first; then `make check` if available. The Makefile has no `check` target. `make` builds through `./Build`, generating it via `perl Build.PL` if needed.
- If the project build fails due to missing dependencies or generated files, record the exact command and failure, then try the narrow entrypoint check `perl -c -Ilib script/munin-node`; run the relevant `./Build test` only if build generation succeeds.
- Make one bounded independent check against the affected running node, if available: sample CPU with `ps -p <pid> -o pid,stat,pcpu,etime,wchan,args` and capture a short `strace` of poll-family syscalls. Treat ordinary timed blocking as non-reproduction.

## Patch Pass

Subject: Diagnose munin-node polling before proposing a CPU fix

## Commit Message
No source changes. The available trace does not identify a Munin code path responsible for runaway CPU, so changing polling or timeout behavior would be speculative. Collect a Perl-level trace and CPU-over-time measurements before proposing a fix.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
The collected signal is a `munin-node` process reported as sleeping, with `pselect6` calls timing out after roughly 1.8 and 2 seconds; the profiler’s top symbol is the kernel function `perf_ctx_enable`, not a Munin function. In the source, `script/munin-node` starts `Munin::Node::Server`, whose main loop is inherited from `Net::Server::Fork`; `lib/Munin/Node/OS.pm` has a separate `select()` for reading plugin output, but the evidence does not connect it to the sampled process behavior. I made no source change because the evidence does not establish a code-level cause. The expected effect of this diagnosis is to avoid changing normal blocking behavior until a trace identifies the responsible code path.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` failed while running `perl Build.PL`: `Can't locate Module/Build.pm in @INC`; make exited with error 2.
- `make check` is unavailable; the workspace `Makefile` defines no `check` target.
- `perl -c -Ilib script/munin-node` failed because the script’s shebang uses taint mode; `perl -T -c -Ilib script/munin-node` passed with `syntax OK`.
- Independent reproduction was blocked: `ps -p 3947104 -o pid,stat,pcpu,etime,wchan,args` found no such process in this environment, so no live trace comparison was possible.
- The workspace remains clean on `master`. `HACKING.pod` says bug-fix patches target `stable-2.0`; no relevant local `pselect` wrapper was found.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: ok

The workspace has no source diff, appropriately avoiding a speculative fix based on indirect profiler and `strace` evidence. The report uses `inferred`, does not claim reproduction, explains the connection to Munin’s inherited server loop, and records the `make` blocker and passing taint-aware syntax check. No actionable findings.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Codex suba

[truncated 3140 bytes]

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem
- Fixer recorded a likely busy-poll investigation for `munin-node`, but the evidence does not locate the loop in Munin code or establish a user-visible failure.
- The Perl entrypoint calls `Munin::Node::Server->run`; that server inherits its accept loop from `Net::Server::Fork`. The only in-repository `select` is plugin-child pipe handling in `Munin::Node::OS::_read_from_child`, which blocks without a timeout and exits on EOF or error.

## Evidence Confidence
- inferred
- The bundle reports three `pselect6` calls and a kernel wait-channel sample, but the hot symbol is `perf_ctx_enable`; it contains no language-level stack or confirmed tight-loop trace. The independent source scout likewise found no in-repository event loop matching the suspected behavior.
- No prior Fixer patch was found in the available evidence. No source patch is justified without additional runtime or dependency evidence.

## Proposed Subject
- No source patch proposed: diagnose the suspected `munin-node` busy poll before attributing it to Munin or Perl.

## Patch Plan
- Do not edit source in this pass. First collect the process state for the affected PID and a language-level trace that identifies whether the loop is in `script/munin-node`, `Munin::Node::Server`, `Munin::Node::OS`, or the external `Net::Server::Fork` dependency.
- If that trace establishes a Munin defect, target the upstream `master` branch for this investigation; `HACKING.pod` identifies `master` as the development branch. Follow the file’s existing Perl style and use relevant Munin helpers, including `do_with_timeout` and the node IO helpers, rather than introducing generic alternatives.
- Avoid speculative loop changes or awkward control flow such as `goto`; the evidence does not yet identify a bounded code path to fix.

## Risks
- Changing blocking or polling behavior without a confirmed trace could alter node request handling or plugin execution while leaving the actual issue—possibly in the inherited dependency—untouched.
- Do not patch the Perl runtime: the evidence does not show runtime misbehavior.

## Validation
- From the workspace root, try the project-level entrypoint first: `make`, then `make check` if available. If those fail due to missing dependencies or generated files, record the exact command and reason, then try the narrowest reproducible node test or compile.
- For a bounded independent reproduction attempt, inspect the affected process with `ps -p <pid> -o pid,stat,pcpu,etime,wchan,args`, then capture a language-level trace while the reported condition is present. The bundle does not provide a usable PID or a failure-demonstrating test, so this cannot currently substantiate a `reproduced` classification.
- Contribution guidance found: `CONTRIBUTING.md` points to `HACKING.pod`; the latter specifies Perl strictness/warnings and branch guidance. No relevant Munin helper was found that can address the suspected inherited accept-loop behavior without first identifying its source.

## Patch Pass

Subject: Diagnose munin-node busy-poll alert as unsupported by trace

## Commit Message
No source changes. The collected evidence does not support a Munin busy-loop fix: the process was sleeping in timed waits, and the profile’s hottest symbol is in the kernel.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
Fixer’s signal labels `munin-node` as a likely busy poll, but its captured `strace` shows `pselect6` calls waiting about 1.8–2 seconds each, while `/proc` reports the process sleeping in `poll_schedule_timeout`. The profile attributes samples to the kernel’s `perf_ctx_enable`, not to a Munin code path, and the Perl backtrace does not identify a faulty script line. Munin’s `Net::Server::Fork`-based server loop and plugin-child pipe reader are plausible places to investigate, but this evidence does not establish either as the cause. I made no source change; the evidence points to an overinterpreted busy-poll classification, not a confirmed Munin defect. No relevant local helper resolves that attribution gap. If stronger evidence identifies a Munin defect, `HACKING.pod` directs development work to upstream `master`.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` — failed while running `Build.PL`: `Can't locate Module/Build.pm in @INC`; `make` exited with “Error 2”.
- `make check` — unavailable: `No rule to make target 'check'`.
- `PERL5LIB=lib perl -c -T script/munin-node` — passed (`syntax OK`).
- Bounded reproduction attempt: `ps -p 3947104 -o pid,stat,pcpu,etime,wchan,args` returned only the header because the captured PID was not running in this workspace. The bundle’s existing trace shows multi-second waits, so I could not independently reproduce the reported busy loop.
- No source diff was left.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: ok

The first pass leaves no source changes, and the workspace is clean. Its `inferred` classification and no-patch diagnosis match the evidence: `pselect6` blocks for seconds, `/proc` reports a sleeping process, and the profile’s hot symbol is in the kernel. It does not claim to have reproduced the reported busy loop.

The report also records the project-level `make` failure (`Module/Build.pm` missing), the unavailable `make check` target, and the successful entrypoint syntax check. No actionable findings.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Codex suba

[truncated 3140 bytes]

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem
- Fixer recorded a likely busy-poll investigation for `munin-node`, but the evidence does not locate the loop in Munin code or establish a user-visible failure.
- The Perl entrypoint calls `Munin::Node::Server->run`; that server inherits its accept loop from `Net::Server::Fork`. The only in-repository `select` is plugin-child pipe handling in `Munin::Node::OS::_read_from_child`, which blocks without a timeout and exits on EOF or error.

## Evidence Confidence
- inferred
- The bundle reports three `pselect6` calls and a kernel wait-channel sample, but the hot symbol is `perf_ctx_enable`; it contains no language-level stack or confirmed tight-loop trace. The independent source scout likewise found no in-repository event loop matching the suspected behavior.
- No prior Fixer patch was found in the available evidence. No source patch is justified without additional runtime or dependency evidence.

## Proposed Subject
- No source patch proposed: diagnose the suspected `munin-node` busy poll before attributing it to Munin or Perl.

## Patch Plan
- Do not edit source in this pass. First collect the process state for the affected PID and a language-level trace that identifies whether the loop is in `script/munin-node`, `Munin::Node::Server`, `Munin::Node::OS`, or the external `Net::Server::Fork` dependency.
- If that trace establishes a Munin defect, target the upstream `master` branch for this investigation; `HACKING.pod` identifies `master` as the development branch. Follow the file’s existing Perl style and use relevant Munin helpers, including `do_with_timeout` and the node IO helpers, rather than introducing generic alternatives.
- Avoid speculative loop changes or awkward control flow such as `goto`; the evidence does not yet identify a bounded code path to fix.

## Risks
- Changing blocking or polling behavior without a confirmed trace could alter node request handling or plugin execution while leaving the actual issue—possibly in the inherited dependency—untouched.
- Do not patch the Perl runtime: the evidence does not show runtime misbehavior.

## Validation
- From the workspace root, try the project-level entrypoint first: `make`, then `make check` if available. If those fail due to missing dependencies or generated files, record the exact command and reason, then try the narrowest reproducible node test or compile.
- For a bounded independent reproduction attempt, inspect the affected process with `ps -p <pid> -o pid,stat,pcpu,etime,wchan,args`, then capture a language-level trace while the reported condition is present. The bundle does not provide a usable PID or a failure-demonstrating test, so this cannot currently substantiate a `reproduced` classification.
- Contribution guidance found: `CONTRIBUTING.md` points to `HACKING.pod`; the latter specifies Perl strictness/warnings and branch guidance. No relevant Munin helper was found that can address the suspected inherited accept-loop behavior without first identifying its source.

## Patch Pass

Subject: Diagnose munin-node busy-poll alert as unsupported by trace

## Commit Message
No source changes. The collected evidence does not support a Munin busy-loop fix: the process was sleeping in timed waits, and the profile’s hottest symbol is in the kernel.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
Fixer’s signal labels `munin-node` as a likely busy poll, but its captured `strace` shows `pselect6` calls waiting about 1.8–2 seconds each, while `/proc` reports the process sleeping in `poll_schedule_timeout`. The profile attributes samples to the kernel’s `perf_ctx_enable`, not to a Munin code path, and the Perl backtrace does not identify a faulty script line. Munin’s `Net::Server::Fork`-based server loop and plugin-child pipe reader are plausible places to investigate, but this evidence does not establish either as the cause. I made no source change; the evidence points to an overinterpreted busy-poll classification, not a confirmed Munin defect. No relevant local helper resolves that attribution gap. If stronger evidence identifies a Munin defect, `HACKING.pod` directs development work to upstream `master`.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` — failed while running `Build.PL`: `Can't locate Module/Build.pm in @INC`; `make` exited with “Error 2”.
- `make check` — unavailable: `No rule to make target 'check'`.
- `PERL5LIB=lib perl -c -T script/munin-node` — passed (`syntax OK`).
- Bounded reproduction attempt: `ps -p 3947104 -o pid,stat,pcpu,etime,wchan,args` returned only the header because the captured PID was not running in this workspace. The bundle’s existing trace shows multi-second waits, so I could not independently reproduce the reported busy loop.
- No source diff was left.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: ok

The first pass leaves no source changes, and the workspace is clean. Its `inferred` classification and no-patch diagnosis match the evidence: `pselect6` blocks for seconds, `/proc` reports a sleeping process, and the profile’s hot symbol is in the kernel. It does not claim to have reproduced the reported busy loop.

The report also records the project-level `make` failure (`Module/Build.pm` missing), the unavailable `make check` target, and the successful entrypoint syntax check. No actionable findings.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Codex suba

[truncated 3140 bytes]

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem
Fixer flags `munin-node` as a likely busy poll, but the captured `pselect6` calls time out after roughly 1.8–2 seconds. Source inspection found the node delegates its accept loop to external `Net::Server::Fork`, which waits with a two-second `IO::Select` timeout. This suggests periodic idle wakeups, not an established CPU-burning loop.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred — the profile and syscall trace are observations, but neither ties CPU consumption to a Munin source defect. Before considering a source patch, collect process CPU/state and a Perl-level stack or equivalent trace during the reported behavior, and confirm the deployed `Net::Server` version. Do not claim reproduction based on the current evidence.

## Proposed Subject
No source patch proposed; diagnose whether the reported CPU use is real and attributable to `munin-node`.

## Patch Plan
- Keep investigation focused first on `script/munin-node` and `lib/Munin/Node/Server.pm`; investigate Perl runtime only if new evidence indicates a runtime defect.
- Make no source changes and replace no prior Fixer patch; the workspace is clean.
- Follow `CONTRIBUTING.md` and `HACKING.pod`. The node uses external `Net::Server::Fork` for its accept loop; the relevant local process helper is `Munin::Node::OS::run_as_child`, but it does not appear to cause the observed idle polling.
- If evidence later supports a source patch, target upstream `master` as directed by `HACKING.pod`. The workspace has no configured remote to verify upstream branch metadata.

## Risks
Changing polling or timeout behavior without proving a defect could alter normal server behavior. The two-second wait belongs to an external dependency, and its deployed version is not yet confirmed.

## Validation
- From the workspace root, try `make` first, then `make check` if available, before a focused compile or smoke check. The project Makefile exposes `make build` and `make test`, not a `check` target; report exact commands and failure reasons.
- Make one bounded independent attempt to check the signal: sample process CPU/state and capture a short `strace` of the same workload. The supplied trace already shows timed-out `pselect6` calls, so it does not reproduce a busy loop.
- If project-level commands fail because dependencies or generated files are missing, record the exact failure and run the narrowest reproducible check for the entrypoint.

## Patch Pass

Subject: Diagnose munin-node polling evidence without a source patch

## Commit Message
No source change. The available trace does not establish a Munin code defect that a safe patch could address.

## Evidence Confidence
observed

## Issue Connection
Fixer observed a Perl `munin-node` process whose samples pass through kernel `perf_ctx_enable`; the kernel stack ends in `pselect6`, and the captured calls wait about 1.8–2 seconds before timing out. `/proc` showed the process sleeping in `poll_schedule_timeout`, not actively spinning. The node delegates accepting connections to external `Net::Server::Fork`, whose loop uses a two-second `IO::Select` wait. This is a plausible explanation for periodic wakeups, but the deployed dependency version and the source of the reported CPU use remain unconfirmed. The failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. With no source-level cause established, I made no change.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` — blocked: `Build.PL` cannot load `Module::Build`.
- `make check` — unavailable: Make reports “No rule to make target 'check'.”
- `perl -Ilib -T -c script/munin-node` — passed (`syntax OK`); this does not test the reported behavior.
- Independent signal check: `ps -p 3947104 -o pid,stat,pcpu,etime,wchan,args` found no such process, so I could not inspect or trace the original workload. No reproduction was achieved.
- No files were modified; the working tree remains clean.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: ok

No source diff is present. The report appropriately treats the trace as observed but not independently reproduced, avoids claiming a confirmed Munin bug, explains the timed `pselect6` waits, and reports the build blocker and unavailable `make check` target.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Codex suba

[truncated 3140 bytes]

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem
Fixer flags `munin-node` as a likely busy poll, but the captured `pselect6` calls time out after roughly 1.8–2 seconds. Source inspection found the node delegates its accept loop to external `Net::Server::Fork`, which waits with a two-second `IO::Select` timeout. This suggests periodic idle wakeups, not an established CPU-burning loop.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred — the profile and syscall trace are observations, but neither ties CPU consumption to a Munin source defect. Before considering a source patch, collect process CPU/state and a Perl-level stack or equivalent trace during the reported behavior, and confirm the deployed `Net::Server` version. Do not claim reproduction based on the current evidence.

## Proposed Subject
No source patch proposed; diagnose whether the reported CPU use is real and attributable to `munin-node`.

## Patch Plan
- Keep investigation focused first on `script/munin-node` and `lib/Munin/Node/Server.pm`; investigate Perl runtime only if new evidence indicates a runtime defect.
- Make no source changes and replace no prior Fixer patch; the workspace is clean.
- Follow `CONTRIBUTING.md` and `HACKING.pod`. The node uses external `Net::Server::Fork` for its accept loop; the relevant local process helper is `Munin::Node::OS::run_as_child`, but it does not appear to cause the observed idle polling.
- If evidence later supports a source patch, target upstream `master` as directed by `HACKING.pod`. The workspace has no configured remote to verify upstream branch metadata.

## Risks
Changing polling or timeout behavior without proving a defect could alter normal server behavior. The two-second wait belongs to an external dependency, and its deployed version is not yet confirmed.

## Validation
- From the workspace root, try `make` first, then `make check` if available, before a focused compile or smoke check. The project Makefile exposes `make build` and `make test`, not a `check` target; report exact commands and failure reasons.
- Make one bounded independent attempt to check the signal: sample process CPU/state and capture a short `strace` of the same workload. The supplied trace already shows timed-out `pselect6` calls, so it does not reproduce a busy loop.
- If project-level commands fail because dependencies or generated files are missing, record the exact failure and run the narrowest reproducible check for the entrypoint.

## Patch Pass

Subject: Diagnose munin-node polling evidence without a source patch

## Commit Message
No source change. The available trace does not establish a Munin code defect that a safe patch could address.

## Evidence Confidence
observed

## Issue Connection
Fixer observed a Perl `munin-node` process whose samples pass through kernel `perf_ctx_enable`; the kernel stack ends in `pselect6`, and the captured calls wait about 1.8–2 seconds before timing out. `/proc` showed the process sleeping in `poll_schedule_timeout`, not actively spinning. The node delegates accepting connections to external `Net::Server::Fork`, whose loop uses a two-second `IO::Select` wait. This is a plausible explanation for periodic wakeups, but the deployed dependency version and the source of the reported CPU use remain unconfirmed. The failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. With no source-level cause established, I made no change.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` — blocked: `Build.PL` cannot load `Module::Build`.
- `make check` — unavailable: Make reports “No rule to make target 'check'.”
- `perl -Ilib -T -c script/munin-node` — passed (`syntax OK`); this does not test the reported behavior.
- Independent signal check: `ps -p 3947104 -o pid,stat,pcpu,etime,wchan,args` found no such process, so I could not inspect or trace the original workload. No reproduction was achieved.
- No files were modified; the working tree remains clean.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: ok

No source diff is present. The report appropriately treats the trace as observed but not independently reproduced, avoids claiming a confirmed Munin bug, explains the timed `pselect6` waits, and reports the build blocker and unavailable `make check` target.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Codex suba

[truncated 15284 bytes]

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem
The evidence labels `munin-node` as a likely busy poll, but its three captured `pselect6` calls blocked for roughly 1.8–2 seconds each. The process was sleeping, and the kernel `perf_ctx_enable` hotspot does not tie CPU use to Munin code. No source change is justified by this trace.

## Evidence Confidence
**inferred** — the trace does not establish a Munin CPU bug. Before considering a patch, collect a Perl-level stack and longer CPU/syscall measurements while the reported spike is active, or reproduce it with a controlled plugin workload.

## Proposed Subject
No source patch; diagnose the apparent `munin-node` poll loop before attributing it to Munin.

## Patch Plan
- Leave Munin and Perl unchanged; no prior Fixer patch needs replacing.
- The entrypoint `script/munin-node` invokes `Munin::Node::Server`; the server’s listener is delegated to `Net::Server::Fork`. Munin’s direct blocking `select()` is in `lib/Munin/Node/OS.pm`, where `_read_from_child()` drains plugin output.
- No relevant custom I/O wrapper was found; existing code uses Perl’s `select`/`sysread` and the local `Munin::Common::Timeout` helper.
- If follow-up evidence confirms a Munin bug, follow `CONTRIBUTING.md` and `HACKING.pod`; the latter directs bug-fix patches to `stable-2.0`.

## Risks
- The trace may have missed a transient spike; three blocking calls cannot rule one out.
- The native stack does not identify a Perl call site or plugin workload, so changing the event loop now would be speculative.

## Validation
- Tried `make` from the workspace root first; it failed because `Build.PL` cannot find `Module/Build.pm`. The Makefile has no `check` target; project tests are documented as `make test` after setup.
- Focused syntax check passed: `perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node`.
- A bounded independent reproduction attempt remains: run a foreground node with a temporary configuration under a 5-second timeout while collecting `ps` CPU data and `strace -ttT`; do not claim reproduction unless it captures the alleged CPU behavior.

## Patch Pass

Subject: Diagnose munin-node poll-loop evidence without a source patch

## Commit Message
No source change. The evidence points to a blocking wait, not a confirmed Munin busy loop: `munin-node` was sleeping, sampled CPU was 0.9%, and the captured `pselect6` calls waited about 1.8–2 seconds before timing out. The kernel-only `perf_ctx_enable` profile does not establish CPU use in Munin or Perl.

Source inspection found a plausible explanation for the wait: `lib/Munin/Node/OS.pm` uses blocking `select()` to read plugin output. The trace does not prove that this call was the sampled wait or that it caused a CPU spike, so changing the event loop would be speculative. The expected effect of this diagnosis is to avoid an unsupported code change while identifying what evidence an upstream report still needs.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
Fixer’s trace reports three `pselect6` timeouts, a sleeping process, and 0.9% sampled CPU, while attributing 100% of the sampled kernel hotspot to `perf_ctx_enable`. The Munin entrypoint delegates its listener loop to `Net::Server::Fork`; Munin’s relevant direct `select()` is in `_read_from_child()`, which waits for plugin output. That is a plausible explanation for a blocking wait, not a confirmed cause of a busy loop. I made no code change because the evidence does not establish an application-level failure. The expected effect is to keep the diagnosis accurate and request a longer capture tied to a Perl call site before proposing a fix.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` failed at `Build.PL:80`: `Module/Build.pm` is missing. The Makefile has no `check` target; its test target depends on the generated `./Build`.
- Focused check passed: `perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node` reported `syntax OK`.
- Bounded independent attempt: launched the node for up to five seconds with an empty plugin directory, loopback host, and port `14949`. It exited with status 1 because the sandbox denied the bind (`Operation not permitted`), so the CPU behavior could not be measured or reproduced.
- No relevant local I/O or polling wrapper was found; the node uses Perl `select`/`sysread` and `Munin::Common::Timeout`. `HACKING.pod` directs bug-fix patches to `stable-2.0`; no patch was prepared.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: fix-needed

## Findings
- `## Validation` summarizes the independent reproduction but omits its command. Include the bounded `timeout 5s ... perl ...` invocation and its result: startup exited because binding to `127.0.0.1:14949` failed with `Operation not permitted`.
- Quote the build blocker exactly: `Can't locate Module/Build.pm in @INC ... at Build.PL line 80.` Also state explicitly that the Makefile has no `check` target.

The `inferred` confidence and no-patch diagnosis are appropriate; no source changes are needed.

## Refinement Pass 1

Subject: Diagnose munin-node poll-loop evidence without a source patch

## Commit Message
No source change. The trace shows `munin-node` sleeping during `pselect6` waits of roughly 1.8–2 seconds, with sampled CPU at 0.9%. The 100% `perf_ctx_enable` figure is the share of the sampled kernel hotspot, not evidence that Munin or Perl was using 100% CPU. Changing the event loop without a reproduced application-level problem would be speculative.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
Fixer’s trace records three `pselect6` calls timing out, a sleeping process, and 0.9% sampled CPU. Munin’s `_read_from_child()` uses blocking `select()` to wait for plugin output, which could explain a wait, but the trace does not establish that this was the call site or the cause of a CPU spike. I made no code change because the evidence is indirect. The expected effect is to avoid an unsupported patch and keep the diagnosis focused on collecting a Perl-level stack and longer CPU/syscall measurements during the reported spike.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- Ran `make` from the workspace root. It failed because `Build.PL` could not load `Module::Build`: `Can't locate Module/Build.pm in @INC (you may need to install the Module::Build module) ... at Build.PL line 80.` The Makefile has no `check` target.
- Focused syntax check passed: `perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node` (`syntax OK`).
- Attempted a bounded five-second run with an empty plugin directory and temporary configuration for loopback port `14949`: `timeout 5s env PERL5LIB="$PWD/lib" perl -T "$PWD/script/munin-node" --foreground --config "$tmpdir/munin-node.conf" --servicedir "$tmpdir/plugins" --sconfdir "$tmpdir/plugin-conf.d"`. Startup exited with status 1 because the sandbox denied binding to `127.0.0.1:14949` (`Operation not permitted`); no CPU measurement or reproduction was obtained.
- No relevant local polling wrapper was found; the code uses Perl `select`/`sysread` and `Munin::Common::Timeout`. `HACKING.pod` directs bug-fix patches to `stable-2.0`; no patch was prepared.

## Review Pass 2

RESULT: ok

The refined report addresses both review findings: it includes the bounded run command and bind failure, and states the `make` blocker and absence of a `check` target. The `inferred` confidence, no-patch diagnosis, and unchanged workspace are appropriate for the evidence.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Codex suba

[truncated 15284 bytes]

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem
The evidence labels `munin-node` as a likely busy poll, but its three captured `pselect6` calls blocked for roughly 1.8–2 seconds each. The process was sleeping, and the kernel `perf_ctx_enable` hotspot does not tie CPU use to Munin code. No source change is justified by this trace.

## Evidence Confidence
**inferred** — the trace does not establish a Munin CPU bug. Before considering a patch, collect a Perl-level stack and longer CPU/syscall measurements while the reported spike is active, or reproduce it with a controlled plugin workload.

## Proposed Subject
No source patch; diagnose the apparent `munin-node` poll loop before attributing it to Munin.

## Patch Plan
- Leave Munin and Perl unchanged; no prior Fixer patch needs replacing.
- The entrypoint `script/munin-node` invokes `Munin::Node::Server`; the server’s listener is delegated to `Net::Server::Fork`. Munin’s direct blocking `select()` is in `lib/Munin/Node/OS.pm`, where `_read_from_child()` drains plugin output.
- No relevant custom I/O wrapper was found; existing code uses Perl’s `select`/`sysread` and the local `Munin::Common::Timeout` helper.
- If follow-up evidence confirms a Munin bug, follow `CONTRIBUTING.md` and `HACKING.pod`; the latter directs bug-fix patches to `stable-2.0`.

## Risks
- The trace may have missed a transient spike; three blocking calls cannot rule one out.
- The native stack does not identify a Perl call site or plugin workload, so changing the event loop now would be speculative.

## Validation
- Tried `make` from the workspace root first; it failed because `Build.PL` cannot find `Module/Build.pm`. The Makefile has no `check` target; project tests are documented as `make test` after setup.
- Focused syntax check passed: `perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node`.
- A bounded independent reproduction attempt remains: run a foreground node with a temporary configuration under a 5-second timeout while collecting `ps` CPU data and `strace -ttT`; do not claim reproduction unless it captures the alleged CPU behavior.

## Patch Pass

Subject: Diagnose munin-node poll-loop evidence without a source patch

## Commit Message
No source change. The evidence points to a blocking wait, not a confirmed Munin busy loop: `munin-node` was sleeping, sampled CPU was 0.9%, and the captured `pselect6` calls waited about 1.8–2 seconds before timing out. The kernel-only `perf_ctx_enable` profile does not establish CPU use in Munin or Perl.

Source inspection found a plausible explanation for the wait: `lib/Munin/Node/OS.pm` uses blocking `select()` to read plugin output. The trace does not prove that this call was the sampled wait or that it caused a CPU spike, so changing the event loop would be speculative. The expected effect of this diagnosis is to avoid an unsupported code change while identifying what evidence an upstream report still needs.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
Fixer’s trace reports three `pselect6` timeouts, a sleeping process, and 0.9% sampled CPU, while attributing 100% of the sampled kernel hotspot to `perf_ctx_enable`. The Munin entrypoint delegates its listener loop to `Net::Server::Fork`; Munin’s relevant direct `select()` is in `_read_from_child()`, which waits for plugin output. That is a plausible explanation for a blocking wait, not a confirmed cause of a busy loop. I made no code change because the evidence does not establish an application-level failure. The expected effect is to keep the diagnosis accurate and request a longer capture tied to a Perl call site before proposing a fix.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` failed at `Build.PL:80`: `Module/Build.pm` is missing. The Makefile has no `check` target; its test target depends on the generated `./Build`.
- Focused check passed: `perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node` reported `syntax OK`.
- Bounded independent attempt: launched the node for up to five seconds with an empty plugin directory, loopback host, and port `14949`. It exited with status 1 because the sandbox denied the bind (`Operation not permitted`), so the CPU behavior could not be measured or reproduced.
- No relevant local I/O or polling wrapper was found; the node uses Perl `select`/`sysread` and `Munin::Common::Timeout`. `HACKING.pod` directs bug-fix patches to `stable-2.0`; no patch was prepared.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: fix-needed

## Findings
- `## Validation` summarizes the independent reproduction but omits its command. Include the bounded `timeout 5s ... perl ...` invocation and its result: startup exited because binding to `127.0.0.1:14949` failed with `Operation not permitted`.
- Quote the build blocker exactly: `Can't locate Module/Build.pm in @INC ... at Build.PL line 80.` Also state explicitly that the Makefile has no `check` target.

The `inferred` confidence and no-patch diagnosis are appropriate; no source changes are needed.

## Refinement Pass 1

Subject: Diagnose munin-node poll-loop evidence without a source patch

## Commit Message
No source change. The trace shows `munin-node` sleeping during `pselect6` waits of roughly 1.8–2 seconds, with sampled CPU at 0.9%. The 100% `perf_ctx_enable` figure is the share of the sampled kernel hotspot, not evidence that Munin or Perl was using 100% CPU. Changing the event loop without a reproduced application-level problem would be speculative.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
Fixer’s trace records three `pselect6` calls timing out, a sleeping process, and 0.9% sampled CPU. Munin’s `_read_from_child()` uses blocking `select()` to wait for plugin output, which could explain a wait, but the trace does not establish that this was the call site or the cause of a CPU spike. I made no code change because the evidence is indirect. The expected effect is to avoid an unsupported patch and keep the diagnosis focused on collecting a Perl-level stack and longer CPU/syscall measurements during the reported spike.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- Ran `make` from the workspace root. It failed because `Build.PL` could not load `Module::Build`: `Can't locate Module/Build.pm in @INC (you may need to install the Module::Build module) ... at Build.PL line 80.` The Makefile has no `check` target.
- Focused syntax check passed: `perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node` (`syntax OK`).
- Attempted a bounded five-second run with an empty plugin directory and temporary configuration for loopback port `14949`: `timeout 5s env PERL5LIB="$PWD/lib" perl -T "$PWD/script/munin-node" --foreground --config "$tmpdir/munin-node.conf" --servicedir "$tmpdir/plugins" --sconfdir "$tmpdir/plugin-conf.d"`. Startup exited with status 1 because the sandbox denied binding to `127.0.0.1:14949` (`Operation not permitted`); no CPU measurement or reproduction was obtained.
- No relevant local polling wrapper was found; the code uses Perl `select`/`sysread` and `Munin::Common::Timeout`. `HACKING.pod` directs bug-fix patches to `stable-2.0`; no patch was prepared.

## Review Pass 2

RESULT: ok

The refined report addresses both review findings: it includes the bounded run command and bind failure, and states the `make` blocker and absence of a `check` target. The `inferred` confidence, no-patch diagnosis, and unchanged workspace are appropriate for the evidence.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Codex suba

[truncated 3140 bytes]

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem
Fixer observed `/usr/bin/perl -wT /usr/sbin/munin-node --foreground` waiting in `pselect6` and classified it as a likely busy-poll loop. The captured calls block for about 1.8–2 seconds, and the process is sleeping; this does not establish runaway CPU or a Munin bug.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

The trace is observed, but its cause is not identified: there is no Perl-level stack or script line, and the sampled `pselect6` could be in the inherited `Net::Server::Fork` event loop or Munin’s plugin-child IO path. Before any source patch, collect a Perl-level stack and correlate it with syscall timing while the behavior is visible.

## Proposed Subject
No source patch proposed; prepare a diagnosis pending evidence that ties the reported behavior to application code.

## Patch Plan
- Inspect `script/munin-node` first: it delegates server operation to `Munin::Node::Server->run()`. The listener loop is inherited from `Net::Server::Fork` (`lib/Munin/Node/Server.pm`); the `select` in `lib/Munin/Node/OS.pm` handles plugin-child output, but the trace does not identify that path.
- No relevant local polling or file-IO wrapper was found. Follow existing Perl handle/`IO::Socket` conventions if later evidence justifies a change; avoid changing the Perl runtime based on this trace.
- No prior Fixer patch or duplicate local patch was found. `HACKING.pod` directs confirmed bug fixes to `stable-2.0`; follow that documented target if a bug is established. No awkward control flow change is warranted without a patch.
- Explain any eventual fix in terms of the identified blocking path and evidence, not as a general “busy loop” fix.

## Risks
Changing listener or child-process wait behavior without identifying the path could affect connection handling or plugin execution. The current evidence may reflect normal blocking waits, not a source defect.

## Validation
- For a later patch, try `make` from the workspace root first, then `make check`; the Makefile defines `make`/`make test` but has no `check` target, so record its exact failure if attempted. If dependencies or generated files prevent the build, follow with the narrowest reproducible Perl compile/test for the touched code.
- Bounded independent reproduction: while `munin-node --foreground` is running, capture `ps -p <pid> -o pid,stat,pcpu,etime,wchan,args` and `strace -ttT -f -e trace=pselect6,select,poll,ppoll,epoll_wait -p <pid>` for a few seconds; compare syscall wait durations and CPU use. Do not claim reproduction unless sustained abnormal behavior is shown and tied to a source path.

## Patch Pass

Subject: Diagnose munin-node polling signal without speculative patch

## Commit Message
No source change. The available trace does not establish a Munin defect or justify changing its event loop.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
Fixer observed `munin-node` in `pselect6`, but the captured calls timed out after about 1.8–2 seconds and `/proc` reported the process sleeping. The backtrace has no Perl-level frame or script line, so it does not show whether the wait was in the listener loop inherited from `Net::Server::Fork` or Munin’s plugin-child IO path. No code change was made: the evidence does not identify a faulty path, and changing either wait loop would be speculative. The expected effect of this report is to avoid an unsupported patch until a high-CPU capture includes a Perl-level stack and syscall correlation.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` from the workspace root failed because `Module/Build.pm` is unavailable (`Build.PL` line 80).
- `make check` failed because the Makefile has no `check` target.
- Narrower checks: `perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node` and `perl -Ilib -c lib/Munin/Node/OS.pm` both reported syntax OK. The latter emitted subroutine-redefinition warnings.
- Bounded reproduction attempt: `ps -p 3947104 -o pid,stat,pcpu,etime,wchan,args` found no process. The captured PID is no longer available, so I could not compare its CPU use or run `strace` against it. No new server was launched.
- No relevant local polling wrapper was found. `script/munin-node` delegates to `Munin::Node::Server->run()`; the listener loop is inherited, while Munin’s `select` is in `Munin::Node::OS`. The workspace is on `master`; `HACKING.pod` documents `stable-2.0` for confirmed bug fixes.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: ok

The first pass is a diagnosis report, not a source patch: the workspace diff is empty and `## Git Add Paths` is `None`. Its `inferred` confidence matches the indirect evidence, and it avoids attributing the blocking wait to either candidate code path. It also reports the project-level build blocker, missing `make check` target, focused syntax checks, and why independent reproduction could not proceed. No actionable review findings.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Codex suba

[truncated 3140 bytes]

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem
Fixer observed `/usr/bin/perl -wT /usr/sbin/munin-node --foreground` waiting in `pselect6` and classified it as a likely busy-poll loop. The captured calls block for about 1.8–2 seconds, and the process is sleeping; this does not establish runaway CPU or a Munin bug.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

The trace is observed, but its cause is not identified: there is no Perl-level stack or script line, and the sampled `pselect6` could be in the inherited `Net::Server::Fork` event loop or Munin’s plugin-child IO path. Before any source patch, collect a Perl-level stack and correlate it with syscall timing while the behavior is visible.

## Proposed Subject
No source patch proposed; prepare a diagnosis pending evidence that ties the reported behavior to application code.

## Patch Plan
- Inspect `script/munin-node` first: it delegates server operation to `Munin::Node::Server->run()`. The listener loop is inherited from `Net::Server::Fork` (`lib/Munin/Node/Server.pm`); the `select` in `lib/Munin/Node/OS.pm` handles plugin-child output, but the trace does not identify that path.
- No relevant local polling or file-IO wrapper was found. Follow existing Perl handle/`IO::Socket` conventions if later evidence justifies a change; avoid changing the Perl runtime based on this trace.
- No prior Fixer patch or duplicate local patch was found. `HACKING.pod` directs confirmed bug fixes to `stable-2.0`; follow that documented target if a bug is established. No awkward control flow change is warranted without a patch.
- Explain any eventual fix in terms of the identified blocking path and evidence, not as a general “busy loop” fix.

## Risks
Changing listener or child-process wait behavior without identifying the path could affect connection handling or plugin execution. The current evidence may reflect normal blocking waits, not a source defect.

## Validation
- For a later patch, try `make` from the workspace root first, then `make check`; the Makefile defines `make`/`make test` but has no `check` target, so record its exact failure if attempted. If dependencies or generated files prevent the build, follow with the narrowest reproducible Perl compile/test for the touched code.
- Bounded independent reproduction: while `munin-node --foreground` is running, capture `ps -p <pid> -o pid,stat,pcpu,etime,wchan,args` and `strace -ttT -f -e trace=pselect6,select,poll,ppoll,epoll_wait -p <pid>` for a few seconds; compare syscall wait durations and CPU use. Do not claim reproduction unless sustained abnormal behavior is shown and tied to a source path.

## Patch Pass

Subject: Diagnose munin-node polling signal without speculative patch

## Commit Message
No source change. The available trace does not establish a Munin defect or justify changing its event loop.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
Fixer observed `munin-node` in `pselect6`, but the captured calls timed out after about 1.8–2 seconds and `/proc` reported the process sleeping. The backtrace has no Perl-level frame or script line, so it does not show whether the wait was in the listener loop inherited from `Net::Server::Fork` or Munin’s plugin-child IO path. No code change was made: the evidence does not identify a faulty path, and changing either wait loop would be speculative. The expected effect of this report is to avoid an unsupported patch until a high-CPU capture includes a Perl-level stack and syscall correlation.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` from the workspace root failed because `Module/Build.pm` is unavailable (`Build.PL` line 80).
- `make check` failed because the Makefile has no `check` target.
- Narrower checks: `perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node` and `perl -Ilib -c lib/Munin/Node/OS.pm` both reported syntax OK. The latter emitted subroutine-redefinition warnings.
- Bounded reproduction attempt: `ps -p 3947104 -o pid,stat,pcpu,etime,wchan,args` found no process. The captured PID is no longer available, so I could not compare its CPU use or run `strace` against it. No new server was launched.
- No relevant local polling wrapper was found. `script/munin-node` delegates to `Munin::Node::Server->run()`; the listener loop is inherited, while Munin’s `select` is in `Munin::Node::OS`. The workspace is on `master`; `HACKING.pod` documents `stable-2.0` for confirmed bug fixes.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: ok

The first pass is a diagnosis report, not a source patch: the workspace diff is empty and `## Git Add Paths` is `None`. Its `inferred` confidence matches the indirect evidence, and it avoids attributing the blocking wait to either candidate code path. It also reports the project-level build blocker, missing `make check` target, focused syntax checks, and why independent reproduction could not proceed. No actionable review findings.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Codex suba

[truncated 15284 bytes]

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem
Fixer flagged `/usr/bin/perl -wT /usr/sbin/munin-node --foreground` as a likely busy poll. The evidence instead shows `pselect6` timing out after roughly 1.8–2 seconds, the process sleeping in `poll_schedule_timeout`, and CPU at 0.9%. Munin’s entrypoint delegates serving to `Munin::Node::Server`, which inherits its accept loop from `Net::Server::Fork`; the trace does not tie the kernel polling frames to a Munin source defect.

## Evidence Confidence
**inferred** — Fixer observed a Perl process and polling frames, but the reported busy-poll diagnosis is unsupported by the blocking trace and low CPU figure. There is no independent reproduction or Perl-level stack connecting the signal to a Munin defect.

## Proposed Subject
No source patch: request targeted diagnosis of `munin-node` polling and CPU attribution.

## Patch Plan
- Do not change Munin’s event loop or Perl runtime without evidence of a source-level defect.
- `script/munin-node` starts `Munin::Node::Server`; `lib/Munin/Node/Server.pm` handles requests and inherits its server loop from `Net::Server::Fork`. The `select` in `lib/Munin/Node/OS.pm` is for reading child-plugin pipes, not the daemon accept loop.
- No prior Fixer patch is identifiable in the evidence bundle or workspace.
- If later evidence supports a fix, follow local Perl `strict`/`warnings` and file style. No applicable local helper for the inherited server polling loop was found. Avoid awkward control flow such as an unnecessary `goto`.
- The checkout is on `master`. `HACKING.pod` specifies `stable-2.0` for bug-fix patches; `README.rst` also permits the default branch. No patch or merge-request base is proposed at this diagnosis stage.

## Risks
A speculative change to Munin or Perl could alter expected blocking behavior without addressing the signal. The profiler attribution, `pselect6` timeouts, and low CPU figure need reconciliation before assigning a source-level cause.

## Validation
- From the workspace root, try `make` first, then `make check` if available. The inspected `Makefile` has no `check` target and the generated `Build` file is absent. If setup fails on missing dependencies or generated files, record the exact command and reason, then try the narrowest reproducible check, such as `perl -Ilib -c script/munin-node`.
- For a bounded independent attempt, start `munin-node` for up to 10 seconds using an isolated config, unprivileged localhost port, and minimal plugin setup; trace `pselect6`, `select`, `poll`, `ppoll`, and `epoll_wait` for up to 5 seconds. Compare syscall blocking and CPU use to the reported signal. This may distinguish expected `Net::Server::Fork` blocking from repeated immediate readiness, but cannot reproduce the original host event or prove a source bug by itself.

## Patch Pass

No change to the diagnosis: Fixer’s trace and `/proc` snapshot don’t establish a Munin source bug, and the captured PID is no longer available to check. The independent source review also found no node event-loop test; the root build remains blocked by missing `Module::Build`.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: fix-needed

## Findings
- `./patch-output.txt` omits the required `Subject:` line and all five required sections: `## Commit Message`, `## Evidence Confidence`, `## Issue Connection`, `## Git Add Paths`, and `## Validation`. Replace it with the requested no-patch diagnosis format, including `inferred` and `None` for Git add paths.
- Validation is not documented in the response. Include the exact `make` failure (`Module/Build.pm` unavailable), note that `Makefile` has no `check` target, report the passing `perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node`, and state that `ps -p 3947104 ...` found no process, blocking a live reproduction.

No source changes are present. The no-patch diagnosis itself is consistent with the evidence: the process was sleeping in `pselect6` timeouts with low CPU, and no Munin source defect is established.

## Refinement Pass 1

Subject: Diagnose munin-node polling attribution before proposing a fix

## Commit Message
This refinement addresses the review’s missing report structure and validation details. No source patch is justified by the available evidence.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
Fixer recorded 100% of sampled kernel-profile activity under `perf_ctx_enable`, but its trace shows `pselect6` timing out after about 1.8 and 2 seconds. The process was sleeping in `poll_schedule_timeout`, with approximately 0.9% CPU. Munin’s `script/munin-node` starts `Munin::Node::Server`, which inherits its listener loop from `Net::Server::Fork`; the evidence does not tie the kernel polling samples to a Munin source defect. I made no code change. The expected effect is to avoid a speculative fix and leave a diagnosis that identifies what evidence is still needed.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` failed while generating `Build`: `Build.PL` could not load `Module/Build.pm`.
- `make check` failed with `No rule to make target 'check'.`
- `perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node` passed with `syntax OK`.
- Bounded signal check: `ps -p 3947104 -o pid,stat,pcpu,etime,wchan,args` found no process, so the captured signal could not be checked live or reproduced.
- No relevant Munin polling helper applies to the inherited listener loop. `HACKING.pod` directs bug-fix patches to `stable-2.0`; `README.rst` also permits `master`. With no source patch, no patch base is selected. The worktree is unchanged.

## Review Pass 2

RESULT: ok

The refined response includes the required sections, uses `inferred` confidence, and accurately describes the evidence and validation blockers. The workspace has no source diff; no patch is warranted.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Codex suba

[truncated 15284 bytes]

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem
Fixer flagged `/usr/bin/perl -wT /usr/sbin/munin-node --foreground` as a likely busy poll. The evidence instead shows `pselect6` timing out after roughly 1.8–2 seconds, the process sleeping in `poll_schedule_timeout`, and CPU at 0.9%. Munin’s entrypoint delegates serving to `Munin::Node::Server`, which inherits its accept loop from `Net::Server::Fork`; the trace does not tie the kernel polling frames to a Munin source defect.

## Evidence Confidence
**inferred** — Fixer observed a Perl process and polling frames, but the reported busy-poll diagnosis is unsupported by the blocking trace and low CPU figure. There is no independent reproduction or Perl-level stack connecting the signal to a Munin defect.

## Proposed Subject
No source patch: request targeted diagnosis of `munin-node` polling and CPU attribution.

## Patch Plan
- Do not change Munin’s event loop or Perl runtime without evidence of a source-level defect.
- `script/munin-node` starts `Munin::Node::Server`; `lib/Munin/Node/Server.pm` handles requests and inherits its server loop from `Net::Server::Fork`. The `select` in `lib/Munin/Node/OS.pm` is for reading child-plugin pipes, not the daemon accept loop.
- No prior Fixer patch is identifiable in the evidence bundle or workspace.
- If later evidence supports a fix, follow local Perl `strict`/`warnings` and file style. No applicable local helper for the inherited server polling loop was found. Avoid awkward control flow such as an unnecessary `goto`.
- The checkout is on `master`. `HACKING.pod` specifies `stable-2.0` for bug-fix patches; `README.rst` also permits the default branch. No patch or merge-request base is proposed at this diagnosis stage.

## Risks
A speculative change to Munin or Perl could alter expected blocking behavior without addressing the signal. The profiler attribution, `pselect6` timeouts, and low CPU figure need reconciliation before assigning a source-level cause.

## Validation
- From the workspace root, try `make` first, then `make check` if available. The inspected `Makefile` has no `check` target and the generated `Build` file is absent. If setup fails on missing dependencies or generated files, record the exact command and reason, then try the narrowest reproducible check, such as `perl -Ilib -c script/munin-node`.
- For a bounded independent attempt, start `munin-node` for up to 10 seconds using an isolated config, unprivileged localhost port, and minimal plugin setup; trace `pselect6`, `select`, `poll`, `ppoll`, and `epoll_wait` for up to 5 seconds. Compare syscall blocking and CPU use to the reported signal. This may distinguish expected `Net::Server::Fork` blocking from repeated immediate readiness, but cannot reproduce the original host event or prove a source bug by itself.

## Patch Pass

No change to the diagnosis: Fixer’s trace and `/proc` snapshot don’t establish a Munin source bug, and the captured PID is no longer available to check. The independent source review also found no node event-loop test; the root build remains blocked by missing `Module::Build`.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: fix-needed

## Findings
- `./patch-output.txt` omits the required `Subject:` line and all five required sections: `## Commit Message`, `## Evidence Confidence`, `## Issue Connection`, `## Git Add Paths`, and `## Validation`. Replace it with the requested no-patch diagnosis format, including `inferred` and `None` for Git add paths.
- Validation is not documented in the response. Include the exact `make` failure (`Module/Build.pm` unavailable), note that `Makefile` has no `check` target, report the passing `perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node`, and state that `ps -p 3947104 ...` found no process, blocking a live reproduction.

No source changes are present. The no-patch diagnosis itself is consistent with the evidence: the process was sleeping in `pselect6` timeouts with low CPU, and no Munin source defect is established.

## Refinement Pass 1

Subject: Diagnose munin-node polling attribution before proposing a fix

## Commit Message
This refinement addresses the review’s missing report structure and validation details. No source patch is justified by the available evidence.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
Fixer recorded 100% of sampled kernel-profile activity under `perf_ctx_enable`, but its trace shows `pselect6` timing out after about 1.8 and 2 seconds. The process was sleeping in `poll_schedule_timeout`, with approximately 0.9% CPU. Munin’s `script/munin-node` starts `Munin::Node::Server`, which inherits its listener loop from `Net::Server::Fork`; the evidence does not tie the kernel polling samples to a Munin source defect. I made no code change. The expected effect is to avoid a speculative fix and leave a diagnosis that identifies what evidence is still needed.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` failed while generating `Build`: `Build.PL` could not load `Module/Build.pm`.
- `make check` failed with `No rule to make target 'check'.`
- `perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node` passed with `syntax OK`.
- Bounded signal check: `ps -p 3947104 -o pid,stat,pcpu,etime,wchan,args` found no process, so the captured signal could not be checked live or reproduced.
- No relevant Munin polling helper applies to the inherited listener loop. `HACKING.pod` directs bug-fix patches to `stable-2.0`; `README.rst` also permits `master`. With no source patch, no patch base is selected. The worktree is unchanged.

## Review Pass 2

RESULT: ok

The refined response includes the required sections, uses `inferred` confidence, and accurately describes the evidence and validation blockers. The workspace has no source diff; no patch is warranted.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Codex suba

[truncated 15284 bytes]

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem
Fixer flags `munin-node` as a likely busy poll, but the evidence does not connect the kernel samples to a spinning loop in Munin code. The captured `pselect6` calls timed out after about 1.8–2 seconds. Source inspection found Munin delegates its server loop to `Net::Server::Fork`; its two-second readiness wait blocks between checks. Munin’s child-output `select` also blocks because it has no timeout.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

This is a profiler-only signal, not an independently reproduced failure. The entrypoint evidence points first to `script/munin-node` and `Munin::Node::Server`, not to Perl itself. No source branch is identified as the cause; the inherited server polling loop is only a plausible area to investigate. No prior Fixer patch is present to improve or replace.

## Proposed Subject
No source patch proposed; diagnose the busy-poll classification.

## Patch Plan
- Do not change Munin or Perl based on this evidence alone.
- Before considering a source patch, collect a language-level stack and CPU/polling trace from the affected process to tie sustained CPU use to a specific entrypoint path.
- If later evidence identifies an application path, follow `HACKING.pod`’s Perl conventions. No relevant project polling wrapper was found; the observed waits use Perl `select` and the server delegates to `Net::Server::Fork`.
- No merge-request base is selected for this diagnosis. `HACKING.pod` says bug-fix patches target `stable-2.0`; any eventual patch should follow that documented convention.

## Risks
A speculative change to server polling or runtime behavior could alter service responsiveness without addressing the reported signal. The available source shows blocking waits, not an established tight loop. Avoid introducing awkward control flow such as `goto`; there is no justified code change to structure yet.

## Validation
- From the workspace root, try `make`, then `make check` if available, before any focused leaf compile or smoke check. The Makefile exposes `build` and `test` targets, but no `check` target was found.
- Make one bounded, independent reproduction attempt only if the affected service can be run safely in an isolated foreground setup; for example, trace its poll-family calls for at most 10 seconds. The captured process context is unavailable here, so this attempt cannot establish the original failure or justify claiming reproduction.
- If project-level commands fail because dependencies or generated files are missing, record the exact command and failure reason, then try the narrowest reproducible Perl syntax/test check relevant to the entrypoint. No patch is planned, so validation should not be presented as confirmation of a fix.

## Patch Pass

Subject: Diagnose munin-node poll profile without speculative changes

## Commit Message
No source changes. The available profile does not identify a Munin code defect, so changing the node or Perl runtime would be speculative.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
Fixer’s evidence reports `munin-node` with 100% of sampled CPU attributed to the kernel symbol `perf_ctx_enable`, but the process snapshot says it was sleeping in `poll_schedule_timeout`. The three captured `pselect6` calls timed out after roughly 1.8–2 seconds; they do not show a tight loop. Source inspection found that `script/munin-node` delegates to `Munin::Node::Server`, while the child-output drain in `Munin::Node::OS` uses a blocking `select` with no timeout. Neither establishes the cause of the profile. No patch is justified without a language-level stack or a trace tied to the affected workload.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` failed because `Module::Build` is unavailable: `Can't locate Module/Build.pm in @INC`; the Makefile’s `Build` target could not be generated.
- `make check` failed because there is no `check` target.
- `PERL5LIB=lib perl -T -c script/munin-node` passed (`syntax OK`).
- Independent reproduction was blocked: `/proc/3947104/status` is unavailable, and the evidence does not include the affected client, plugin, or configuration needed to recreate the workload. Starting a fresh node would not reproduce that signal reliably and could bind a service socket.
- No relevant local polling helper was found. `HACKING.pod` says bug-fix patches target `stable-2.0` and are merged into `master`; this diagnosis has no patch base.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: fix-needed

## Findings
- `patch-output.txt` overstates the trace: only the first two captured `pselect6` calls show timeout results; the third call is truncated. Change “The three captured calls timed out” to “The first two captured calls timed out; the third is incomplete.”
- Qualify the “100% of sampled CPU” wording to distinguish the kernel’s share of samples from overall process CPU use; the evidence reports process CPU at 0.9%.

## Refinement Pass 1

Subject: Clarify munin-node profile diagnosis without speculative changes

## Commit Message
No source changes. Clarify the profile report so it distinguishes kernel sample attribution from total process CPU and does not overstate the truncated trace.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
Fixer’s evidence shows `munin-node` sleeping in `poll_schedule_timeout`; the first two captured `pselect6` calls timed out after about 1.8–2 seconds, while the third call is incomplete. Although 100% of hot-path samples were attributed to the kernel symbol `perf_ctx_enable`, the reported total process CPU was 0.9%. Source inspection found blocking waits in Munin’s child-output handling, but does not establish that this path caused the profile. This refinement corrects those descriptions; no source patch is justified without evidence tying sustained CPU use to a Munin code path. The expected effect is a more precise diagnosis without implying a confirmed busy loop.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` failed because `Module::Build` is unavailable; `Build.PL` stopped at line 80.
- `make check` failed because the Makefile has no `check` target.
- `PERL5LIB=lib perl -T -c script/munin-node` passed (`syntax OK`).
- Independent reproduction remains blocked: the captured process is unavailable and the bundle lacks its client, plugin, and configuration. No relevant local polling helper was found; the examined code uses Perl `select`, and the server delegates to `Net::Server::Fork`.
- `HACKING.pod` documents `stable-2.0` for bug-fix patches and says they are merged into `master`; with no source patch, no merge-request base applies.

## Review Pass 2

RESULT: ok

No source diff is present. The refined diagnosis correctly states that only the first two `pselect6` calls show timeouts, the third is incomplete, and total process CPU was 0.9% despite all hot-path samples pointing to `perf_ctx_enable`. It retains `inferred` confidence and avoids proposing an unsupported source fix.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Codex suba

[truncated 15284 bytes]

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem
Fixer flags `munin-node` as a likely busy poll, but the evidence does not connect the kernel samples to a spinning loop in Munin code. The captured `pselect6` calls timed out after about 1.8–2 seconds. Source inspection found Munin delegates its server loop to `Net::Server::Fork`; its two-second readiness wait blocks between checks. Munin’s child-output `select` also blocks because it has no timeout.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

This is a profiler-only signal, not an independently reproduced failure. The entrypoint evidence points first to `script/munin-node` and `Munin::Node::Server`, not to Perl itself. No source branch is identified as the cause; the inherited server polling loop is only a plausible area to investigate. No prior Fixer patch is present to improve or replace.

## Proposed Subject
No source patch proposed; diagnose the busy-poll classification.

## Patch Plan
- Do not change Munin or Perl based on this evidence alone.
- Before considering a source patch, collect a language-level stack and CPU/polling trace from the affected process to tie sustained CPU use to a specific entrypoint path.
- If later evidence identifies an application path, follow `HACKING.pod`’s Perl conventions. No relevant project polling wrapper was found; the observed waits use Perl `select` and the server delegates to `Net::Server::Fork`.
- No merge-request base is selected for this diagnosis. `HACKING.pod` says bug-fix patches target `stable-2.0`; any eventual patch should follow that documented convention.

## Risks
A speculative change to server polling or runtime behavior could alter service responsiveness without addressing the reported signal. The available source shows blocking waits, not an established tight loop. Avoid introducing awkward control flow such as `goto`; there is no justified code change to structure yet.

## Validation
- From the workspace root, try `make`, then `make check` if available, before any focused leaf compile or smoke check. The Makefile exposes `build` and `test` targets, but no `check` target was found.
- Make one bounded, independent reproduction attempt only if the affected service can be run safely in an isolated foreground setup; for example, trace its poll-family calls for at most 10 seconds. The captured process context is unavailable here, so this attempt cannot establish the original failure or justify claiming reproduction.
- If project-level commands fail because dependencies or generated files are missing, record the exact command and failure reason, then try the narrowest reproducible Perl syntax/test check relevant to the entrypoint. No patch is planned, so validation should not be presented as confirmation of a fix.

## Patch Pass

Subject: Diagnose munin-node poll profile without speculative changes

## Commit Message
No source changes. The available profile does not identify a Munin code defect, so changing the node or Perl runtime would be speculative.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
Fixer’s evidence reports `munin-node` with 100% of sampled CPU attributed to the kernel symbol `perf_ctx_enable`, but the process snapshot says it was sleeping in `poll_schedule_timeout`. The three captured `pselect6` calls timed out after roughly 1.8–2 seconds; they do not show a tight loop. Source inspection found that `script/munin-node` delegates to `Munin::Node::Server`, while the child-output drain in `Munin::Node::OS` uses a blocking `select` with no timeout. Neither establishes the cause of the profile. No patch is justified without a language-level stack or a trace tied to the affected workload.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` failed because `Module::Build` is unavailable: `Can't locate Module/Build.pm in @INC`; the Makefile’s `Build` target could not be generated.
- `make check` failed because there is no `check` target.
- `PERL5LIB=lib perl -T -c script/munin-node` passed (`syntax OK`).
- Independent reproduction was blocked: `/proc/3947104/status` is unavailable, and the evidence does not include the affected client, plugin, or configuration needed to recreate the workload. Starting a fresh node would not reproduce that signal reliably and could bind a service socket.
- No relevant local polling helper was found. `HACKING.pod` says bug-fix patches target `stable-2.0` and are merged into `master`; this diagnosis has no patch base.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: fix-needed

## Findings
- `patch-output.txt` overstates the trace: only the first two captured `pselect6` calls show timeout results; the third call is truncated. Change “The three captured calls timed out” to “The first two captured calls timed out; the third is incomplete.”
- Qualify the “100% of sampled CPU” wording to distinguish the kernel’s share of samples from overall process CPU use; the evidence reports process CPU at 0.9%.

## Refinement Pass 1

Subject: Clarify munin-node profile diagnosis without speculative changes

## Commit Message
No source changes. Clarify the profile report so it distinguishes kernel sample attribution from total process CPU and does not overstate the truncated trace.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
Fixer’s evidence shows `munin-node` sleeping in `poll_schedule_timeout`; the first two captured `pselect6` calls timed out after about 1.8–2 seconds, while the third call is incomplete. Although 100% of hot-path samples were attributed to the kernel symbol `perf_ctx_enable`, the reported total process CPU was 0.9%. Source inspection found blocking waits in Munin’s child-output handling, but does not establish that this path caused the profile. This refinement corrects those descriptions; no source patch is justified without evidence tying sustained CPU use to a Munin code path. The expected effect is a more precise diagnosis without implying a confirmed busy loop.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` failed because `Module::Build` is unavailable; `Build.PL` stopped at line 80.
- `make check` failed because the Makefile has no `check` target.
- `PERL5LIB=lib perl -T -c script/munin-node` passed (`syntax OK`).
- Independent reproduction remains blocked: the captured process is unavailable and the bundle lacks its client, plugin, and configuration. No relevant local polling helper was found; the examined code uses Perl `select`, and the server delegates to `Net::Server::Fork`.
- `HACKING.pod` documents `stable-2.0` for bug-fix patches and says they are merged into `master`; with no source patch, no merge-request base applies.

## Review Pass 2

RESULT: ok

No source diff is present. The refined diagnosis correctly states that only the first two `pselect6` calls show timeouts, the third is incomplete, and total process CPU was 0.9% despite all hot-path samples pointing to `perf_ctx_enable`. It retains `inferred` confidence and avoids proposing an unsupported source fix.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem
Fixer flagged `/usr/bin/perl -wT /usr/sbin/munin-node --foreground` as a likely busy poll. The evidence shows three `pselect6` calls with waits of about 1.8–2 seconds, a sleeping process, and samples attributed to the kernel’s `perf_ctx_enable`; it does not establish a tight loop in Munin or Perl.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

The script entrypoint is `script/munin-node`, which delegates serving to `Munin::Node::Server`, a `Net::Server::Fork` subclass. That points to the server’s accept loop as the first source-level area to investigate; inspect the Perl runtime only if further evidence implicates it. An independent scout found a possible blocking-read issue in the *master* client, but the reported process is `munin-node`, so that finding does not connect the complaint to this signal. Before proposing any source patch, collect a contemporaneous CPU measurement and language-level stack or syscall trace tied to the affected node PID.

## Proposed Subject
No source patch yet: determine whether the reported Munin node is actually consuming CPU.

## Patch Plan
No code changes in this pass. First correlate per-process CPU usage with the reported `pselect6` waits and identify the active Perl stack. If that ties the behavior to Munin source, plan a targeted mitigation around the confirmed path; if it implicates Perl or the kernel, investigate those only then. No prior Fixer source patch was found to improve or replace. No Munin wrapper for the server’s wait loop was identified; follow the existing `Net::Server::Fork` integration and Perl style if a patch is later justified. Avoid introducing `goto` where a bounded loop or helper can express the control flow. `HACKING.pod` says bug-fix patches target `stable-2.0`; use that documented exception if a bug fix is confirmed, rather than assuming the snapshot’s `master` is the merge base.

## Risks
Changing the server loop based only on timed waits could alter connection handling without addressing the reported CPU signal. The trace may reflect expected idle waiting or profiler/kernel overhead rather than a Munin defect.

## Validation
From the workspace root, try `make` first, then `make test` (the project’s test target; no `check` target appears in the Makefile). For one bounded, independent reproduction attempt, measure the live node’s CPU over 30 seconds while capturing its syscall waits and Perl stack; do not claim reproduction unless this shows sustained CPU use tied to a repeatable source path. No leaf compile is planned without a code change.

## Patch Pass



## Workflow Note

{"type":"item.completed","item":{"id":"item_27","type":"reasoning","text":"**Classifying evidence as observed**\n**Checking deployed config**\n**Checking branch guidance**"}}
{"type":"error","message":"Reconnecting... 1/5 (stream disconnected before completion: Upstream websocket closed before response.completed: Upstream websocket receive failed)"}
{"type":"error","message":"Reconnecting... 2/5 (unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: 0dc0939a-cf4d-4415-9319-2c6d1f9e7069)"}
{"type":"error","message":"Reconnecting... 3/5 (unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: b9db79e6-29b2-4751-806a-b4b8da2400c5)"}
{"type":"error","message":"Reconnecting... 4/5 (unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: 6ad751c4-f423-4ffa-8647-585e2836235d)"}
{"type":"error","message":"Reconnecting... 5/5 (unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: bad60f8c-3a14-4ed7-a94f-fc482ca13747)"}
{"type":"error","message":"unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: 6eca6e50-e43f-49b3-8d83-ae5d4318375d"}
{"type":"turn.failed","error":{"message":"unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: 6eca6e50-e43f-49b3-8d83-ae5d4318375d"}}

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem
Fixer flags `munin-node` as a likely busy poller, but the captured `pselect6` calls time out after roughly 1.8–2 seconds and the process state is sleeping. The evidence does not establish a script-level CPU loop.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred — diagnosis only; no source patch is justified yet. `script/munin-node` delegates server operation to `Munin::Node::Server`, whose accept loop is inherited from `Net::Server::Fork`; the request path reads from blocking input. A separate possible pipe-draining issue exists in `Munin::Node::OS`, but nothing in the evidence links it to this process or signal. To reconsider a patch, collect a language-level stack and CPU/syscall trace from the affected process, plus its `Net::Server` version and socket/TLS configuration.

## Proposed Subject
No patch proposed. Report that the available evidence does not localize the suspected polling to Munin code.

## Patch Plan
No edits; no prior Fixer patch needs replacing. `HACKING.pod` documents `stable-2.0` as the target for bug fixes. The `Munin::Node::OS` child-output path uses local `select`/`sysread` helpers, but its possible EOF/pipe issue is not tied to this evidence and should not be changed speculatively. The checkout has only a synthetic `master` baseline, so the upstream base cannot be confirmed offline.

## Risks
A speculative server-loop or pipe-handling change could alter connection or plugin behavior without addressing the reported signal.

## Validation
From the workspace root, try `make` and then `make test`; `make check` is not defined in the inspected top-level `Makefile`. Make one bounded independent attempt to trace an isolated foreground `munin-node` for up to 10 seconds while idle; only call the failure reproduced if that attempt shows the same behavior. No validation commands were run in this planning pass.

## Patch Pass



## Workflow Note

{"type":"item.completed","item":{"id":"item_31","type":"agent_message","text":"The local compile passes, but the trace cannot reproduce kernel perf attribution; I’m confirming the workspace stayed unchanged."}}
{"type":"error","message":"Reconnecting... 1/5 (stream disconnected before completion: Upstream websocket closed before response.completed: Upstream websocket receive failed)"}
{"type":"error","message":"Reconnecting... 2/5 (unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: 3a2f1ec3-de3e-42f9-8f13-93a9ea80e2ec)"}
{"type":"error","message":"Reconnecting... 3/5 (unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: 0efb3003-b633-4b52-8779-066adb8f274b)"}
{"type":"error","message":"Reconnecting... 4/5 (unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: bb981ea7-3743-490a-b76e-dab7668fdb32)"}
{"type":"error","message":"Reconnecting... 5/5 (unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: 9f42d9c7-1d9b-45a4-ab00-85cdf5248916)"}
{"type":"error","message":"unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: dfa93da1-e938-4ae9-b87b-cbc44d8f3412"}
{"type":"turn.failed","error":{"message":"unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: dfa93da1-e938-4ae9-b87b-cbc44d8f3412"}}

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Codex suba

[truncated 3140 bytes]

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem
- Fixer flags `/usr/sbin/munin-node` as a likely busy poll, but the captured `pselect6` calls time out after roughly 1.8–2 seconds, and the process was sleeping. That signal alone does not establish runaway CPU.

## Evidence Confidence
- inferred
- The Perl entrypoint delegates to `Munin::Node::Server->run`; that class inherits `Net::Server::Fork`. The trace is consistent with the listener’s timed wait, not a demonstrated Munin busy loop. No Perl-level stack connects the profile to faulty application logic, and the evidence records the process at 0.9% CPU. An independent reproduction has not confirmed the complaint.
- Collect a fresh CPU measurement and language-level stack while tracing the affected node before considering any source patch.

## Proposed Subject
- No source patch proposed: diagnose the observed profile before attributing it to Munin.

## Patch Plan
- Inspect the node entrypoint and its serving path first; investigate Perl runtime behavior only if new evidence implicates the interpreter.
- If a Munin defect is established, target upstream `master`, as specified by `README.rst` and `HACKING.pod`; do not frame this as a Debian-only workaround.
- Follow the project’s Perl conventions: taint mode, `strict`/`warnings`, and the file’s existing style. No relevant Munin event-loop wrapper was found; serving is delegated to `Net::Server::Fork`. Use the existing `Munin::Node::OS` pipe handling helpers if plugin IO becomes relevant.
- The workspace is at the Fixer baseline; no prior Fixer patch needs replacement. Avoid proposing control-flow changes without evidence identifying a faulty loop.

## Risks
- Changing listener timing without proving a defect could alter server behavior without addressing CPU usage. The brief syscall sample does not locate the alleged CPU cost.

## Validation
- First try `make` from the workspace root, then `make check` if available; the Makefile has no `check` target. If dependencies or generated files prevent the build, record the exact command and failure, then try `make test` as the nearest project test entrypoint.
- Make one bounded independent reproduction attempt against the affected or matching node: capture CPU usage and a Perl-level stack while tracing `pselect6` durations for up to 10 seconds. Treat repeated timed waits without elevated CPU as evidence against the busy-poll claim, not as a reproduced failure.

## Patch Pass

Subject: Diagnose Munin node profile before proposing a source change

## Commit Message
No patch: the available profile does not establish a Munin busy-poll bug. Gather stronger runtime evidence before proposing an upstream code change.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
Fixer’s evidence shows `munin-node` sleeping in `pselect6`, with waits timing out after roughly 1.8–2 seconds. The Perl entrypoint delegates serving to `Munin::Node::Server`, which inherits from `Net::Server::Fork`; this is consistent with an idle listener wait, not proof of a CPU-burning Munin loop. The `100% perf_ctx_enable` profiler hotspot does not establish 100% process CPU, and no Perl-level stack ties the signal to faulty Munin code. No source change is made. A stronger diagnosis needs a reproduced high-CPU condition and a stack or workload trace identifying its cause.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` failed because `Build.PL` could not find `Module::Build`.
- `make check` failed because the Makefile has no `check` target; `make test` hit the same missing `Module::Build` dependency.
- `perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node` passed. The plain `perl -Ilib -c` check failed because the script requires taint mode.
- The bounded trace attempt, `timeout 10s strace -ttT -p 3947104 -e trace=pselect6`, was blocked by `Operation not permitted` from `ptrace`; `ps -p 3947104 ...` also found no process. The failure was not independently reproduced.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: ok

No source patch is present: the workspace is clean, and `## Git Add Paths` says `None`. The report appropriately uses `inferred`, describes the timed `pselect6` waits and low process CPU cautiously, and does not claim reproduction. It also reports the build/test blockers and the failed trace attempt without overstating validation.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Codex suba

[truncated 3140 bytes]

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem
- Fixer flags `/usr/sbin/munin-node` as a likely busy poll, but the captured `pselect6` calls time out after roughly 1.8–2 seconds, and the process was sleeping. That signal alone does not establish runaway CPU.

## Evidence Confidence
- inferred
- The Perl entrypoint delegates to `Munin::Node::Server->run`; that class inherits `Net::Server::Fork`. The trace is consistent with the listener’s timed wait, not a demonstrated Munin busy loop. No Perl-level stack connects the profile to faulty application logic, and the evidence records the process at 0.9% CPU. An independent reproduction has not confirmed the complaint.
- Collect a fresh CPU measurement and language-level stack while tracing the affected node before considering any source patch.

## Proposed Subject
- No source patch proposed: diagnose the observed profile before attributing it to Munin.

## Patch Plan
- Inspect the node entrypoint and its serving path first; investigate Perl runtime behavior only if new evidence implicates the interpreter.
- If a Munin defect is established, target upstream `master`, as specified by `README.rst` and `HACKING.pod`; do not frame this as a Debian-only workaround.
- Follow the project’s Perl conventions: taint mode, `strict`/`warnings`, and the file’s existing style. No relevant Munin event-loop wrapper was found; serving is delegated to `Net::Server::Fork`. Use the existing `Munin::Node::OS` pipe handling helpers if plugin IO becomes relevant.
- The workspace is at the Fixer baseline; no prior Fixer patch needs replacement. Avoid proposing control-flow changes without evidence identifying a faulty loop.

## Risks
- Changing listener timing without proving a defect could alter server behavior without addressing CPU usage. The brief syscall sample does not locate the alleged CPU cost.

## Validation
- First try `make` from the workspace root, then `make check` if available; the Makefile has no `check` target. If dependencies or generated files prevent the build, record the exact command and failure, then try `make test` as the nearest project test entrypoint.
- Make one bounded independent reproduction attempt against the affected or matching node: capture CPU usage and a Perl-level stack while tracing `pselect6` durations for up to 10 seconds. Treat repeated timed waits without elevated CPU as evidence against the busy-poll claim, not as a reproduced failure.

## Patch Pass

Subject: Diagnose Munin node profile before proposing a source change

## Commit Message
No patch: the available profile does not establish a Munin busy-poll bug. Gather stronger runtime evidence before proposing an upstream code change.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
Fixer’s evidence shows `munin-node` sleeping in `pselect6`, with waits timing out after roughly 1.8–2 seconds. The Perl entrypoint delegates serving to `Munin::Node::Server`, which inherits from `Net::Server::Fork`; this is consistent with an idle listener wait, not proof of a CPU-burning Munin loop. The `100% perf_ctx_enable` profiler hotspot does not establish 100% process CPU, and no Perl-level stack ties the signal to faulty Munin code. No source change is made. A stronger diagnosis needs a reproduced high-CPU condition and a stack or workload trace identifying its cause.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` failed because `Build.PL` could not find `Module::Build`.
- `make check` failed because the Makefile has no `check` target; `make test` hit the same missing `Module::Build` dependency.
- `perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node` passed. The plain `perl -Ilib -c` check failed because the script requires taint mode.
- The bounded trace attempt, `timeout 10s strace -ttT -p 3947104 -e trace=pselect6`, was blocked by `Operation not permitted` from `ptrace`; `ps -p 3947104 ...` also found no process. The failure was not independently reproduced.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: ok

No source patch is present: the workspace is clean, and `## Git Add Paths` says `None`. The report appropriately uses `inferred`, describes the timed `pselect6` waits and low process CPU cautiously, and does not claim reproduction. It also reports the build/test blockers and the failed trace attempt without overstating validation.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Codex suba

[truncated 3140 bytes]

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem
Fixer flags `munin-node` as a likely busy poll, but the capture does not establish a CPU-burning loop. It shows the process sleeping and `pselect6` calls timing out after roughly 1.8 and 2 seconds. The script delegates its server loop to `Munin::Node::Server`, which inherits `Net::Server::Fork`; I found no source evidence that the project’s loops spin.

## Evidence Confidence
**inferred** — Fixer observed the process and syscall samples, but they do not prove the suspected failure. The source inspection also does not identify a bug to patch. Before considering edits, collect a bounded CPU and syscall trace from the affected process while it is reportedly consuming CPU; the bundle provides no language-level stack tying CPU use to Munin code.

## Proposed Subject
No source patch proposed. Diagnose whether the reported CPU use is attributable to `munin-node` or to the kernel profiler signal.

## Patch Plan
- Make no edits unless a trace ties the CPU use to a Munin code path.
- Start with `script/munin-node`; investigate the Perl runtime only if evidence first rules out script/application logic.
- If evidence later supports a source change, follow `HACKING.pod`’s Perl strictness, warnings, and local style. The server delegates polling to `Net::Server::Fork`; no Munin-specific poll or file-I/O helper relevant to this signal was found.
- `HACKING.pod` directs bug-fix patches to `stable-2.0`; use that documented base rather than assuming `master`.

## Risks
Changing a normal blocking accept loop based on this capture could introduce needless wakeups or alter daemon behavior without fixing a demonstrated issue. No prior Fixer patch is present to replace or improve.

## Validation
- From the workspace root, try `make` first (the default build target); then `make check` only if available. The Makefile has no `check` target; its test target is `make test`.
- If build dependencies or generated files prevent project-level validation, record the exact command and failure reason, then try the narrowest reproducible Perl compile or test for any subsequently identified code path.
- For a bounded independent check, on the affected host capture `ps -p <pid> -o pid,stat,pcpu,etime,wchan,args` and a short `strace -ttT -p <pid>` sample while the process is reported hot. The evidence does not include a usable PID in this workspace, so this cannot independently reproduce the report here.

## Patch Pass

Subject: No patch: investigate munin-node CPU report

## Commit Message
No source change. The evidence does not establish a `munin-node` busy loop: Fixer’s trace shows the process sleeping in `pselect6`, with calls timing out after roughly two seconds. The captured kernel sample alone does not identify a Munin code path causing high CPU use.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
Fixer observed `munin-node` sleeping while `pselect6` timed out, and the sampled hot symbol was `perf_ctx_enable` in the kernel. The inspected entrypoint delegates serving to `Munin::Node::Server`, which inherits `Net::Server::Fork`; I found no source evidence of a spinning loop. No code change is proposed because the signal does not establish a Munin bug. The recorded PID was unavailable in this workspace, so I could not independently reproduce the reported CPU condition.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` failed at `Build.PL:80`: `Module::Build` is missing.
- `make check` failed because the Makefile has no `check` target.
- `perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node` passed (`syntax OK`); the script requires `-T` because its shebang enables taint mode.
- Independent reproduction was blocked: PID `3947104` from the evidence was not present, so no live `ps`/`strace` comparison was possible.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: ok

The first pass correctly leaves no source diff. Its `inferred` confidence matches the evidence: Fixer captured `munin-node` sleeping in `pselect6` with timeouts around two seconds, and the sampled hot symbol is in the kernel; this does not establish a Munin busy loop.

The report identifies the script entrypoint and `Net::Server::Fork` delegation, records the missing `Module::Build` blocker and successful taint-mode syntax check, and notes that the captured PID was unavailable for independent reproduction. No relevant Munin polling helper or source-level cause was found. No actionable patch findings.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Codex suba

[truncated 3140 bytes]

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem
Fixer flags `munin-node` as a likely busy poll, but the capture does not establish a CPU-burning loop. It shows the process sleeping and `pselect6` calls timing out after roughly 1.8 and 2 seconds. The script delegates its server loop to `Munin::Node::Server`, which inherits `Net::Server::Fork`; I found no source evidence that the project’s loops spin.

## Evidence Confidence
**inferred** — Fixer observed the process and syscall samples, but they do not prove the suspected failure. The source inspection also does not identify a bug to patch. Before considering edits, collect a bounded CPU and syscall trace from the affected process while it is reportedly consuming CPU; the bundle provides no language-level stack tying CPU use to Munin code.

## Proposed Subject
No source patch proposed. Diagnose whether the reported CPU use is attributable to `munin-node` or to the kernel profiler signal.

## Patch Plan
- Make no edits unless a trace ties the CPU use to a Munin code path.
- Start with `script/munin-node`; investigate the Perl runtime only if evidence first rules out script/application logic.
- If evidence later supports a source change, follow `HACKING.pod`’s Perl strictness, warnings, and local style. The server delegates polling to `Net::Server::Fork`; no Munin-specific poll or file-I/O helper relevant to this signal was found.
- `HACKING.pod` directs bug-fix patches to `stable-2.0`; use that documented base rather than assuming `master`.

## Risks
Changing a normal blocking accept loop based on this capture could introduce needless wakeups or alter daemon behavior without fixing a demonstrated issue. No prior Fixer patch is present to replace or improve.

## Validation
- From the workspace root, try `make` first (the default build target); then `make check` only if available. The Makefile has no `check` target; its test target is `make test`.
- If build dependencies or generated files prevent project-level validation, record the exact command and failure reason, then try the narrowest reproducible Perl compile or test for any subsequently identified code path.
- For a bounded independent check, on the affected host capture `ps -p <pid> -o pid,stat,pcpu,etime,wchan,args` and a short `strace -ttT -p <pid>` sample while the process is reported hot. The evidence does not include a usable PID in this workspace, so this cannot independently reproduce the report here.

## Patch Pass

Subject: No patch: investigate munin-node CPU report

## Commit Message
No source change. The evidence does not establish a `munin-node` busy loop: Fixer’s trace shows the process sleeping in `pselect6`, with calls timing out after roughly two seconds. The captured kernel sample alone does not identify a Munin code path causing high CPU use.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
Fixer observed `munin-node` sleeping while `pselect6` timed out, and the sampled hot symbol was `perf_ctx_enable` in the kernel. The inspected entrypoint delegates serving to `Munin::Node::Server`, which inherits `Net::Server::Fork`; I found no source evidence of a spinning loop. No code change is proposed because the signal does not establish a Munin bug. The recorded PID was unavailable in this workspace, so I could not independently reproduce the reported CPU condition.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` failed at `Build.PL:80`: `Module::Build` is missing.
- `make check` failed because the Makefile has no `check` target.
- `perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node` passed (`syntax OK`); the script requires `-T` because its shebang enables taint mode.
- Independent reproduction was blocked: PID `3947104` from the evidence was not present, so no live `ps`/`strace` comparison was possible.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: ok

The first pass correctly leaves no source diff. Its `inferred` confidence matches the evidence: Fixer captured `munin-node` sleeping in `pselect6` with timeouts around two seconds, and the sampled hot symbol is in the kernel; this does not establish a Munin busy loop.

The report identifies the script entrypoint and `Net::Server::Fork` delegation, records the missing `Module::Build` blocker and successful taint-mode syntax check, and notes that the captured PID was unavailable for independent reproduction. No relevant Munin polling helper or source-level cause was found. No actionable patch findings.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Codex suba

[truncated 3140 bytes]

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem
- Fixer flagged `munin-node` for likely busy polling, but the captured evidence does not establish that Munin is spinning: the three `pselect6` calls each timed out after roughly 1.8–2 seconds, and the sampled hot symbol is in the kernel.
- The entrypoint delegates serving to `Munin::Node::Server`, which inherits its accept loop from `Net::Server::Fork`. No local accept-loop polling bug is demonstrated.

## Evidence Confidence
- **inferred**
- The profiler signal and entrypoint are observed, but the suspected cause is not localized. The independent source scout found no local event loop and no relevant idle-client or event-loop tests. Before considering a source patch, collect a language-level stack or trace and inspect the installed `Net::Server::Fork` implementation/version; then reproduce the claimed CPU behavior safely. Do not attribute this to Perl runtime without evidence.

## Proposed Subject
- No source patch proposed; prepare a diagnosis explaining why the available signal is insufficient to identify a Munin defect.

## Patch Plan
- No code changes in this pass. `CONTRIBUTING.md` and `HACKING.pod` were reviewed; HACKING recommends `use strict;`, `use warnings;`, and tests via `perl Build.PL` / `./Build test`.
- The node entrypoint delegates to `Munin::Node::Server`; the local plugin-output reader in `Munin::Node::OS` uses blocking `select`, not an evident busy-poll loop. No relevant local IO wrapper or helper for the suspected accept-loop behavior was found.
- No prior Fixer patch to improve or replace was indicated. If evidence later supports a code change, prepare it against upstream `master` for investigation/behavior work; HACKING recommends `stable-2.0` for confirmed bug fixes. Avoid proposing a runtime or application control-flow change without a reproducer.

## Risks
- Misreading blocking timeouts or kernel sampling as a hot user-space loop could produce an unrelated or harmful patch. The evidence does not show a user-visible failure or localize the behavior to Munin.

## Validation
- Before any focused compile/test, try `make` from the workspace root, then `make check` if available; the Makefile exposes a `test` target, not an evident `check` target. HACKING’s documented test entrypoint is `perl Build.PL` followed by `./Build test`.
- Perform one bounded independent reproduction attempt using the captured process command, checking process CPU and wait state while tracing syscalls; the supplied short trace already shows multi-second timeout waits, so it cannot establish a busy loop. Don’t claim reproduction unless that attempt demonstrates sustained CPU use tied to Munin.
- This is a planning-only pass: no build or reproduction was run, and no files were edited.

## Patch Pass

Subject: Diagnose inconclusive munin-node CPU profile

## Commit Message
No source changes. The profile flags `munin-node`, but the available trace does not identify a Munin busy loop. More process-level evidence is needed before proposing a fix.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
The collected signal is a Perl `munin-node` process sampled in the kernel at `perf_ctx_enable`. The accompanying five-second `strace` excerpt shows three `pselect6` calls waiting until timeout for about 1.8–2 seconds each, while `/proc` reports the process sleeping. Together, these observations do not establish sustained CPU use by Munin or identify a code-level cause.

Source inspection found that `script/munin-node` delegates serving to `Munin::Node::Server`, whose accept loop is inherited from `Net::Server::Fork`; the local plugin-output reader uses blocking `select`. Neither inspection nor the captured evidence identifies a faulty loop to change. The expected effect of this diagnosis is to avoid an unsupported source patch; an upstream report should first capture a live language-level stack or trace alongside process CPU and wait-state data. No relevant local helper for the suspected accept-loop behavior was found. The workspace is on `master`; any later upstream patch should target `master` for investigation work, with `stable-2.0` reserved for confirmed bug fixes per `HACKING.pod`.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` from the workspace root failed because `Module::Build` is unavailable: `Can't locate Module/Build.pm in @INC`; `Build.PL` aborted.
- `make check` failed because the Makefile has no `check` target.
- Focused syntax check passed: `PERL5LIB=lib perl -T -c script/munin-node` → `syntax OK`.
- Bounded reproduction attempt: `ps -p 3947104 -o pid,stat,pcpu,etime,wchan,args` returned only the header, so the captured PID is not present in this environment and the CPU behavior could not be independently reproduced. No files were edited.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: ok

Reviewed `./patch-output.txt` against the evidence bundle. It correctly classifies confidence as `inferred`, avoids proposing a source change from profiler-only evidence, and reports the root build blocker, focused syntax check, and inconclusive reproduction attempt. The workspace has no source diff; no actionable issues found.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Codex suba

[truncated 3140 bytes]

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem
- Fixer flagged `munin-node` for likely busy polling, but the captured evidence does not establish that Munin is spinning: the three `pselect6` calls each timed out after roughly 1.8–2 seconds, and the sampled hot symbol is in the kernel.
- The entrypoint delegates serving to `Munin::Node::Server`, which inherits its accept loop from `Net::Server::Fork`. No local accept-loop polling bug is demonstrated.

## Evidence Confidence
- **inferred**
- The profiler signal and entrypoint are observed, but the suspected cause is not localized. The independent source scout found no local event loop and no relevant idle-client or event-loop tests. Before considering a source patch, collect a language-level stack or trace and inspect the installed `Net::Server::Fork` implementation/version; then reproduce the claimed CPU behavior safely. Do not attribute this to Perl runtime without evidence.

## Proposed Subject
- No source patch proposed; prepare a diagnosis explaining why the available signal is insufficient to identify a Munin defect.

## Patch Plan
- No code changes in this pass. `CONTRIBUTING.md` and `HACKING.pod` were reviewed; HACKING recommends `use strict;`, `use warnings;`, and tests via `perl Build.PL` / `./Build test`.
- The node entrypoint delegates to `Munin::Node::Server`; the local plugin-output reader in `Munin::Node::OS` uses blocking `select`, not an evident busy-poll loop. No relevant local IO wrapper or helper for the suspected accept-loop behavior was found.
- No prior Fixer patch to improve or replace was indicated. If evidence later supports a code change, prepare it against upstream `master` for investigation/behavior work; HACKING recommends `stable-2.0` for confirmed bug fixes. Avoid proposing a runtime or application control-flow change without a reproducer.

## Risks
- Misreading blocking timeouts or kernel sampling as a hot user-space loop could produce an unrelated or harmful patch. The evidence does not show a user-visible failure or localize the behavior to Munin.

## Validation
- Before any focused compile/test, try `make` from the workspace root, then `make check` if available; the Makefile exposes a `test` target, not an evident `check` target. HACKING’s documented test entrypoint is `perl Build.PL` followed by `./Build test`.
- Perform one bounded independent reproduction attempt using the captured process command, checking process CPU and wait state while tracing syscalls; the supplied short trace already shows multi-second timeout waits, so it cannot establish a busy loop. Don’t claim reproduction unless that attempt demonstrates sustained CPU use tied to Munin.
- This is a planning-only pass: no build or reproduction was run, and no files were edited.

## Patch Pass

Subject: Diagnose inconclusive munin-node CPU profile

## Commit Message
No source changes. The profile flags `munin-node`, but the available trace does not identify a Munin busy loop. More process-level evidence is needed before proposing a fix.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
The collected signal is a Perl `munin-node` process sampled in the kernel at `perf_ctx_enable`. The accompanying five-second `strace` excerpt shows three `pselect6` calls waiting until timeout for about 1.8–2 seconds each, while `/proc` reports the process sleeping. Together, these observations do not establish sustained CPU use by Munin or identify a code-level cause.

Source inspection found that `script/munin-node` delegates serving to `Munin::Node::Server`, whose accept loop is inherited from `Net::Server::Fork`; the local plugin-output reader uses blocking `select`. Neither inspection nor the captured evidence identifies a faulty loop to change. The expected effect of this diagnosis is to avoid an unsupported source patch; an upstream report should first capture a live language-level stack or trace alongside process CPU and wait-state data. No relevant local helper for the suspected accept-loop behavior was found. The workspace is on `master`; any later upstream patch should target `master` for investigation work, with `stable-2.0` reserved for confirmed bug fixes per `HACKING.pod`.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` from the workspace root failed because `Module::Build` is unavailable: `Can't locate Module/Build.pm in @INC`; `Build.PL` aborted.
- `make check` failed because the Makefile has no `check` target.
- Focused syntax check passed: `PERL5LIB=lib perl -T -c script/munin-node` → `syntax OK`.
- Bounded reproduction attempt: `ps -p 3947104 -o pid,stat,pcpu,etime,wchan,args` returned only the header, so the captured PID is not present in this environment and the CPU behavior could not be independently reproduced. No files were edited.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: ok

Reviewed `./patch-output.txt` against the evidence bundle. It correctly classifies confidence as `inferred`, avoids proposing a source change from profiler-only evidence, and reports the root build blocker, focused syntax check, and inconclusive reproduction attempt. The workspace has no source diff; no actionable issues found.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Codex suba

[truncated 3140 bytes]

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem
Fixer’s profiler evidence suggests that `/usr/bin/perl -wT /usr/sbin/munin-node --foreground` may be busy-polling, but it does not identify the script code causing it. The captured stack returns through `pselect6` only three times; the hot symbol is the kernel’s `perf_ctx_enable`, not a Munin function.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

The finding is profiler-only: no language-level stack, workload, configuration, PID, or independent reproduction ties the signal to a Munin code path. Source inspection finds the node server inherits its accept loop from `Net::Server::Fork`; the `select` in `lib/Munin/Node/OS.pm:99` reads plugin child pipes, not the node’s accept loop. That is not enough to justify a source patch or blame Perl itself.

## Proposed Subject
No source patch: diagnose profiler-only `munin-node` polling signal.

## Patch Plan
- Make no source edits. First obtain a reproducible capture that connects the hot loop to Munin code, including a language-level stack and relevant workload/configuration.
- Investigate `script/munin-node` first, then the `Munin::Node::Server` and `Net::Server::Fork` interaction; investigate Perl runtime behavior only if that evidence points there.
- No relevant IO/event-loop helper for the server accept loop or prior Fixer patch was found in this checkout. Avoid changing the unrelated plugin-pipe `select` without evidence.
- `HACKING.pod` says bug fixes should target `stable-2.0`; local git contains only the Fixer baseline on `master`, with no remotes or upstream history to confirm a more current base.

## Risks
A speculative patch could alter inherited server behavior without addressing the observed signal. The evidence is too sparse to distinguish script behavior, dependency behavior, or profiler/kernel effects. A separate source-only scout proposed an unrelated master-worker cleanup theory; it does not match the captured `munin-node` command or poll signal and should not guide this investigation.

## Validation
- No behavioral reproducer is currently available: the bundle has no PID, workload, or configuration to replay. A bounded attempt to reproduce from the captured invocation is therefore not safe or meaningful; obtain a target-process capture before claiming reproduction.
- From the workspace root, try `make` first. Then check for `make check`; the inspected `Makefile` exposes `build` and `test`, but no `check` target. If the project build succeeds, use `make test` as the project test entrypoint.
- No focused compile or smoke check is planned until further evidence identifies a Munin code path.

## Patch Pass

Subject: Diagnose profiler-only munin-node polling signal

## Commit Message
No source change: the available evidence does not identify a Munin code path to fix safely. The profiler flags repeated polling, but the signal is insufficient to distinguish application behavior from runtime, dependency, or kernel effects.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
The collected signal is a Perl `munin-node` process with three sampled `pselect6` calls, a kernel hot symbol (`perf_ctx_enable`), and a poll-related wait channel. That suggests polling activity but does not establish a tight loop in Munin code: there is no language-level stack, workload, configuration, or process ID tying it to a source location. Source inspection found that the node server uses `Net::Server::Fork`; the `select` in `lib/Munin/Node/OS.pm` reads plugin child pipes, not the server’s accept loop. I made no source change because attributing the signal to either path would be speculative. The expected effect of this diagnosis is to avoid an unsupported patch; a process-specific trace and workload details are needed to identify a cause. `HACKING.pod` says bug fixes target `stable-2.0`; this checkout has only a local `master` baseline and no upstream refs. No relevant local accept-loop helper or prior Fixer patch was found.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` failed while generating `Build`: `Build.PL` could not find `Module/Build.pm`.
- `make check` failed because the Makefile has no `check` target.
- `perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node` passed (`syntax OK`). The initial `perl -Ilib -c` attempt failed because the script requires taint mode.
- Bounded process check, `ps -eo pid=,comm=,args= | awk '$2 == "perl" && /munin-node/ { print }'`, found no matching node process, so an independent runtime reproduction was not possible. No source files were changed.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: ok

No source changes are present in the workspace. The author’s report keeps confidence at `inferred`, accurately treats the profiler signal as insufficient to justify a source patch, and reports the project build blocker and available focused syntax check. I found no actionable review findings.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Codex suba

[truncated 3140 bytes]

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem
Fixer’s profiler evidence suggests that `/usr/bin/perl -wT /usr/sbin/munin-node --foreground` may be busy-polling, but it does not identify the script code causing it. The captured stack returns through `pselect6` only three times; the hot symbol is the kernel’s `perf_ctx_enable`, not a Munin function.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

The finding is profiler-only: no language-level stack, workload, configuration, PID, or independent reproduction ties the signal to a Munin code path. Source inspection finds the node server inherits its accept loop from `Net::Server::Fork`; the `select` in `lib/Munin/Node/OS.pm:99` reads plugin child pipes, not the node’s accept loop. That is not enough to justify a source patch or blame Perl itself.

## Proposed Subject
No source patch: diagnose profiler-only `munin-node` polling signal.

## Patch Plan
- Make no source edits. First obtain a reproducible capture that connects the hot loop to Munin code, including a language-level stack and relevant workload/configuration.
- Investigate `script/munin-node` first, then the `Munin::Node::Server` and `Net::Server::Fork` interaction; investigate Perl runtime behavior only if that evidence points there.
- No relevant IO/event-loop helper for the server accept loop or prior Fixer patch was found in this checkout. Avoid changing the unrelated plugin-pipe `select` without evidence.
- `HACKING.pod` says bug fixes should target `stable-2.0`; local git contains only the Fixer baseline on `master`, with no remotes or upstream history to confirm a more current base.

## Risks
A speculative patch could alter inherited server behavior without addressing the observed signal. The evidence is too sparse to distinguish script behavior, dependency behavior, or profiler/kernel effects. A separate source-only scout proposed an unrelated master-worker cleanup theory; it does not match the captured `munin-node` command or poll signal and should not guide this investigation.

## Validation
- No behavioral reproducer is currently available: the bundle has no PID, workload, or configuration to replay. A bounded attempt to reproduce from the captured invocation is therefore not safe or meaningful; obtain a target-process capture before claiming reproduction.
- From the workspace root, try `make` first. Then check for `make check`; the inspected `Makefile` exposes `build` and `test`, but no `check` target. If the project build succeeds, use `make test` as the project test entrypoint.
- No focused compile or smoke check is planned until further evidence identifies a Munin code path.

## Patch Pass

Subject: Diagnose profiler-only munin-node polling signal

## Commit Message
No source change: the available evidence does not identify a Munin code path to fix safely. The profiler flags repeated polling, but the signal is insufficient to distinguish application behavior from runtime, dependency, or kernel effects.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
The collected signal is a Perl `munin-node` process with three sampled `pselect6` calls, a kernel hot symbol (`perf_ctx_enable`), and a poll-related wait channel. That suggests polling activity but does not establish a tight loop in Munin code: there is no language-level stack, workload, configuration, or process ID tying it to a source location. Source inspection found that the node server uses `Net::Server::Fork`; the `select` in `lib/Munin/Node/OS.pm` reads plugin child pipes, not the server’s accept loop. I made no source change because attributing the signal to either path would be speculative. The expected effect of this diagnosis is to avoid an unsupported patch; a process-specific trace and workload details are needed to identify a cause. `HACKING.pod` says bug fixes target `stable-2.0`; this checkout has only a local `master` baseline and no upstream refs. No relevant local accept-loop helper or prior Fixer patch was found.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` failed while generating `Build`: `Build.PL` could not find `Module/Build.pm`.
- `make check` failed because the Makefile has no `check` target.
- `perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node` passed (`syntax OK`). The initial `perl -Ilib -c` attempt failed because the script requires taint mode.
- Bounded process check, `ps -eo pid=,comm=,args= | awk '$2 == "perl" && /munin-node/ { print }'`, found no matching node process, so an independent runtime reproduction was not possible. No source files were changed.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: ok

No source changes are present in the workspace. The author’s report keeps confidence at `inferred`, accurately treats the profiler signal as insufficient to justify a source patch, and reports the project build blocker and available focused syntax check. I found no actionable review findings.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

Response

## Plan Pass



## Workflow Note

{"type":"error","message":"Reconnecting... 4/5 (unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: b17b35e9-9be9-4906-8cea-35b976aa80ad)"}
{"type":"error","message":"Reconnecting... 5/5 (unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: 063da6f1-53f2-4259-8acc-42e652812ab3)"}
{"type":"error","message":"unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: 0ba061aa-ecd1-401f-8dc7-5228ad7531d1"}
{"type":"turn.failed","error":{"message":"unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: 0ba061aa-ecd1-401f-8dc7-5228ad7531d1"}}
2026-09-27T08:57:16.729256Z ERROR codex_core::session: failed to record rollout items: thread 01a0e214-68a2-7391-88bd-71b9a34f4664 not found
2026-09-27T08:57:16.729287Z ERROR codex_core::session: failed to record rollout items: thread 01a0e214-68a2-7391-88bd-71b9a34f4664 not found
2026-09-27T08:57:16.773866Z ERROR codex_core::session: failed to record rollout items: thread 01a0e214-68a2-7391-88bd-71b9a34f4664 not found
2026-09-27T08:57:16.773887Z ERROR codex_core::session: failed to record rollout items: thread 01a0e214-68a2-7391-88bd-71b9a34f4664 not found

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem
Fixer reports `munin-node` repeatedly calling `pselect6` with roughly two-second timeouts and labels this a likely busy poll. The trace instead looks consistent with an idle listener waiting for connections; it does not establish unexpected CPU use caused by Munin.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred. The observed syscalls timed out after about 1.8 and 2 seconds, and the process was sleeping in `poll_schedule_timeout`. The entrypoint `script/munin-node` runs `Munin::Node::Server`; inspection found that the server subclasses `Net::Server::Fork`, whose installed `IO::Select->can_read(2)` accept loop normally waits two seconds when idle. This does not independently reproduce Fixer’s CPU finding or prove a Munin defect. Before proposing a source patch, collect an idle-run profile and compare CPU usage and accept behavior against that loop.

## Proposed Subject
No patch proposed; diagnose whether this is normal idle-listener behavior or a reproducible CPU issue first.

## Patch Plan
- Make no source changes based on this evidence alone; do not patch Perl runtime behavior.
- If further evidence demonstrates a Munin bug, inspect the listener and its callers before changing code. No relevant local event-loop wrapper was found; the wait is in the external `Net::Server::Fork` dependency.
- Follow `CONTRIBUTING.md` and `HACKING.pod` if a patch becomes justified. `HACKING.pod` explicitly directs bug fixes to `stable-2.0`; this local checkout has only synthetic `master` with no remotes or upstream history. No prior Fixer patch is present to replace or improve.
- Keep any future fix bounded and avoid awkward control flow such as an unnecessary `goto`.

## Risks
Changing the accept wait without evidence could alter listener responsiveness or CPU use without fixing a Munin defect. Current evidence may reflect normal idle operation rather than a busy loop.

## Validation
From the workspace root, first try project-level `make`; check whether `make check` exists before attempting it. The Makefile exposes `build` and `test`, but no `check` target. For a safe, bounded independent reproduction attempt, run the foreground node with an isolated temporary configuration and observe its idle CPU and syscall wait durations for five seconds; compare those to the expected two-second listener wait. Do not treat matching waits alone as reproducing the reported CPU issue. If a source change is later justified, run `./Build test` after the project-level attempt.

## Patch Pass



## Workflow Note

{"type":"item.completed","item":{"id":"item_3","type":"command_execution","command":"/bin/bash -lc \"cat ./plan-output.txt; printf '\\\\n--- evidence identifiers ---\\\\n'; jq -r '.opportunity.evidence.details | {command_line,hot_path_symbol,hot_path_percent,loop_classification,loop_explanation,strace_excerpt,status_excerpt,wchan,interpreter_process}' ./evidence.json; printf '\\\\n--- workspace status ---\\\\n'; git status --short\"","aggregated_output":"## Problem\nFixer reports `munin-node` repeatedly calling `pselect6` with roughly two-second timeouts and labels this a likely busy poll. The trace instead looks consistent with an idle listener waiting for connections; it does not establish unexpected CPU use caused by Munin.\n\n## Evidence Confidence\ninferred. The observed syscalls timed out after about 1.8 and 2 seconds, and the process was sleeping in `poll_schedule_timeout`. The entrypoint `script/munin-node` runs `Munin::Node::Server`; inspection found that the server subclasses `Net::Server::Fork`, whose installed `IO::Select->can_read(2)` accept loop normally waits two seconds when idle. This does not independently reproduce Fixer’s CPU finding or prove a Munin defect. Before proposing a source patch, collect an idle-run profile and compare CPU usage and accept behavior against that loop.\n\n## Proposed Subject\nNo patch proposed; diagnose whether this is normal idle-listener behavior or a reproducible CPU issue first.\n\n## Patch Plan\n- Make no source changes based on this evidence alone; do not patch Perl runtime behavior.\n- If further evidence demonstrates a Munin bug, inspect the listener and its callers before changing code. No relevant local event-loop wrapper was found; the wait is in the external `Net::Server::Fork` dependency.\n- Follow `CONTRIBUTING.md` and `HACKING.pod` if a patch becomes justified. `HACKING.pod` explicitly directs bug fixes to `stable-2.0`; this local checkout has only synthetic `master` with no remotes or upstream history. No prior Fixer patch is present to replace or improve.\n- Keep any future fix bounded and avoid awkward control flow such as an unnecessary `goto`.\n\n## Risks\nChanging the accept wait without evidence could alter listener responsiveness or CPU use without fixing a Munin defect. Current evidence may reflect normal idle operation rather than a busy loop.\n\n## Validation\nFrom the workspace root, first try project-level `make`; check whether `make check` exists before attempting it. The Makefile exposes `build` and `test`, but no `check` target. For a safe, bounded independent reproduction attempt, run the foreground node with an isolated temporary configuration and observe its idle CPU and syscall wait durations for five seconds; compare those to the expected two-second listener wait. Do not treat matching waits alone as reproducing the reported CPU issue. If a source change is later justified, run `./Build test` after the project-level attempt.\n--- evidence identifiers ---\n{\n  \"command_line\": \"/usr/bin/perl -wT /usr/sbin/munin-node --foreground\",\n  \"hot_path_symbol\": \"perf_ctx_enable\",\n  \"hot_path_percent\": 100.0,\n  \"loop_classification\": \"busy-poll\",\n  \"loop_explanation\": \"The trace repeatedly returns to a poll-family syscall without meaningful blocking, which suggests a busy event-loop wakeup.\",\n  \"strace_excerpt\": [\n    \"3947104 00:14:14.481204 pselect6(8, [5], NULL, NULL, {tv_sec=1, tv_nsec=813665550}, NULL) = 0 (Timeout) <1.815530>\",\n    \"3947104 00:14:16.296962 pselect6(8, [5], NULL, NULL, {tv_sec=2, tv_nsec=0}, NULL) = 0 (Timeout) <2.002044>\",\n    \"3947104 00:14:18.299106 pselect6(8, [5], NULL, NULL, {tv_sec=2, tv_nsec=0}, NULL\"\n  ],\n  \"status_excerpt\": \"Name:\\tmunin-node\\nUmask:\\t0022\\nState:\\tS (sleeping)\\nTgid:\\t3947104\\nNgid:\\t0\\nPid:\\t3947104\\nPPid:\\t1\\nTracerPid:\\t0\\nUid:\\t0\\t0\\t0\\t0\\nGid:\\t0\\t0\\t0\\t0\\nFDSize:\\t1024\\nGroups:\\t0 0 \\nNStgid:\\t3947104\\nNSpid:\\t3947104\\nNSpgid:\\t3947104\\nNSsid:\\t3947104\\nKthread:\\t0\\nVmPeak:\\t   26588 kB\\nVmSize:\\t   26588 kB\\nVmLck:\\t       0 kB\\nVmPin:\\t       0 kB\\nVmHWM:\\t   17088 kB\\nVmRSS:\\t   17088 kB\\nRssAnon:\\t   10224 kB\",\n  \"wchan\": \"poll_schedule_timeout.constprop.0\",\n  \"interpreter_process\": {\n    \"detection_signals\": [\n      \"native samples contain perl runtime frames\",\n      \"process command resolves to perl interpreter\"\n    ],\n    \"entrypoint_kind\": \"script\",\n    \"entrypoint_package_metadata\": {\n      \"candidate_version\": \"2.999.16-1\",\n      \"homepage\": \"https://munin-monitoring.org\",\n      \"installed_version\": \"2.0.76-7\",\n      \"package_name\": \"munin-node\",\n      \"report_url\": null,\n      \"source_package\": \"munin\"\n    },\n    \"entrypoint_package_name\": \"munin-node\",\n    \"evidence_gap\": \"Fixer saw a perl interpreter loop and a script entrypoint, but it did not prove whether the tight loop comes from script/application logic or from the runtime itself.\",\n    \"interpreter\": \"perl\",\n    \"interpreter_executable\": \"/usr/bin/perl\",\n    \"interpreter_options\": [\n      \"-wT\"\n    ],\n    \"module_options\": [],\n    \"recommended_next_steps\": [\n      \"ps -p <pid> -o pid,stat,pcpu,etime,wchan,args\",\n      \"Inspect the perl script or module entrypoint first; only patch the interpreter/runtime after proving it mishandles the workload.\",\n      \"Capture a language-level stack, trace, or minimal reproducer that ties the hot loop to the entrypoint before proposing runtime changes.\",\n      \"Keep runtime performance fixes in scope only when they also make bad script code run more predictably or cheaply without changing language semantics.\"\n    ],\n    \"runtime_package_metadata\": {\n      \"candidate_version\": \"5.42.2-1\",\n      \"homepage\": \"https://dev.perl.org/perl5/\",\n      \"installed_version\": \"5.40.1-7+b1\",\n      \"package_name\": \"perl-base\",\n      \"report_url\": null,\n      \"source_package\": \"perl\"\n    },\n    \"runtime_package_name\": \"perl-base\",\n    \"script_candidates\": [\n      \"/usr/sbin/munin-node\"\n    ],\n    \"suspected_entrypoint\": \"/usr/sbin/munin-node\"\n  }\n}\n\n--- workspace status ---\n","exit_code":0,"status":"completed"}}

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

Response

## Plan Pass



## Workflow Note

{"type":"error","message":"Reconnecting... 4/5 (unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: b8ebe300-a3bc-4789-9f59-f9092bf45974)"}
{"type":"error","message":"Reconnecting... 5/5 (unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: c69a6ad2-25a3-4547-af38-f86170621cfb)"}
{"type":"error","message":"unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: e1c4ea98-9569-4d08-8c4c-cce446e01b47"}
{"type":"turn.failed","error":{"message":"unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: e1c4ea98-9569-4d08-8c4c-cce446e01b47"}}
2026-09-27T02:41:44.342898Z ERROR codex_core::session: failed to record rollout items: thread 01a0e0bc-799f-7932-9f7d-11f0533e5da6 not found
2026-09-27T02:41:44.342901Z ERROR codex_core::session: failed to record rollout items: thread 01a0e0bc-799f-7932-9f7d-11f0533e5da6 not found
2026-09-27T02:41:44.342914Z ERROR codex_core::session: failed to record rollout items: thread 01a0e0bc-799f-7932-9f7d-11f0533e5da6 not found
2026-09-27T02:41:44.342915Z ERROR codex_core::session: failed to record rollout items: thread 01a0e0bc-799f-7932-9f7d-11f0533e5da6 not found

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Codex suba

[truncated 3140 bytes]

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem
Fixer flagged `munin-node` as a likely busy-poll loop, but the evidence shows a sleeping process and `pselect6` calls that wait about 1.8–2 seconds before timing out. It does not identify a Perl-level hot loop.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred — this is a no-patch diagnosis plan. The evidence is profiler-only and does not connect the sampled syscall to Munin code. Before considering a source patch, collect a Perl-level stack and a bounded trace from a controlled node instance; Fixer did not independently reproduce the reported failure.

## Proposed Subject
Diagnose the reported `munin-node` CPU signal; make no source change on the current evidence.

## Patch Plan
- Inspect `script/munin-node` first. It delegates server operation to `Munin::Node::Server`, which inherits `Net::Server::Fork`; the observed polling may therefore be in the dependency rather than Munin code.
- Report that the captured waits look like ordinary timed waits, not evidence of a busy loop. Do not patch the Perl runtime or server loop without a trace tying the behavior to application code.
- No prior Fixer patch needs replacing. No relevant local event-loop helper was found; `Munin::Common::Timeout` bounds request handling, while `Munin::Node::OS` has a separate blocking child-pipe `select()` not linked to this signal.
- Follow `CONTRIBUTING.md` and `HACKING.pod` Perl conventions if later evidence supports a patch. The workspace is on `master`; `HACKING.pod` explicitly directs bug fixes to `stable-2.0`, so use that base for a confirmed bug fix.

## Risks
A speculative loop change could alter server behavior without addressing the sampled activity. The evidence also comes from installed Munin 2.0.76, while the workspace source is 2.999.16, limiting direct comparison. No avoidable `goto` or other control-flow change is proposed.

## Validation
From the workspace root, try `make` first, then `make check` if the target exists, followed by the project test entrypoint `make test`; the Makefile defines `build` and `test`, but no `check` target. For an independent reproduction, attempt a time-bounded `strace` of a foreground node using an isolated config and port, capturing `pselect6` timing and a Perl-level stack; do not use the live service. If isolation or the required dependencies are unavailable, record that and do not claim reproduction. No focused leaf compile is planned unless project-level validation fails and a source change is later justified.

## Patch Pass

Subject: Diagnose munin-node polling signal without speculative patch

## Commit Message
No source change. The available trace does not establish a Munin bug: the process was sleeping in a timed wait, and no Perl-level stack identifies the code responsible. A source patch would be speculative.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
Fixer collected a `munin-node` profile in which all sampled CPU passed through the kernel’s `perf_ctx_enable` symbol. However, `/proc` reported the process sleeping at 0.9% CPU, and `strace` recorded `pselect6` calls waiting about 1.8–2 seconds before timing out. Those observations do not demonstrate a busy loop or identify a Munin code-level cause. The entrypoint delegates to `Net::Server::Fork`; the evidence does not distinguish its event loop from normal idle waiting, Perl runtime behavior, or another cause. No source change is justified, so no effect from a patch is claimed. The captured PID was absent during validation, preventing an independent reproduction.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` — blocked because `Build.PL` cannot find `Module::Build`.
- `make check` — unavailable; the root Makefile has no `check` target.
- `make test` — blocked by the same missing `Module::Build` dependency.
- `perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node` — passed (`syntax OK`).
- Bounded reproduction check: `ps -p 3947104 -o pid,stat,pcpu,etime,wchan,args` returned only the column headers; the collected process was no longer present. No independent reproduction was established.
- No files were changed. The workspace is on `master`; `HACKING.pod` directs bug fixes to `stable-2.0`, but no branch-targeted patch is warranted.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: ok

No actionable findings. `patch-output.txt` recommends a diagnosis-only response, classifies confidence as `inferred`, and lists no source changes. Its explanation and validation results match the evidence; the workspace diff is empty.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Codex suba

[truncated 3140 bytes]

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem
Fixer flagged `munin-node` as a likely busy-poll loop, but the evidence shows a sleeping process and `pselect6` calls that wait about 1.8–2 seconds before timing out. It does not identify a Perl-level hot loop.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred — this is a no-patch diagnosis plan. The evidence is profiler-only and does not connect the sampled syscall to Munin code. Before considering a source patch, collect a Perl-level stack and a bounded trace from a controlled node instance; Fixer did not independently reproduce the reported failure.

## Proposed Subject
Diagnose the reported `munin-node` CPU signal; make no source change on the current evidence.

## Patch Plan
- Inspect `script/munin-node` first. It delegates server operation to `Munin::Node::Server`, which inherits `Net::Server::Fork`; the observed polling may therefore be in the dependency rather than Munin code.
- Report that the captured waits look like ordinary timed waits, not evidence of a busy loop. Do not patch the Perl runtime or server loop without a trace tying the behavior to application code.
- No prior Fixer patch needs replacing. No relevant local event-loop helper was found; `Munin::Common::Timeout` bounds request handling, while `Munin::Node::OS` has a separate blocking child-pipe `select()` not linked to this signal.
- Follow `CONTRIBUTING.md` and `HACKING.pod` Perl conventions if later evidence supports a patch. The workspace is on `master`; `HACKING.pod` explicitly directs bug fixes to `stable-2.0`, so use that base for a confirmed bug fix.

## Risks
A speculative loop change could alter server behavior without addressing the sampled activity. The evidence also comes from installed Munin 2.0.76, while the workspace source is 2.999.16, limiting direct comparison. No avoidable `goto` or other control-flow change is proposed.

## Validation
From the workspace root, try `make` first, then `make check` if the target exists, followed by the project test entrypoint `make test`; the Makefile defines `build` and `test`, but no `check` target. For an independent reproduction, attempt a time-bounded `strace` of a foreground node using an isolated config and port, capturing `pselect6` timing and a Perl-level stack; do not use the live service. If isolation or the required dependencies are unavailable, record that and do not claim reproduction. No focused leaf compile is planned unless project-level validation fails and a source change is later justified.

## Patch Pass

Subject: Diagnose munin-node polling signal without speculative patch

## Commit Message
No source change. The available trace does not establish a Munin bug: the process was sleeping in a timed wait, and no Perl-level stack identifies the code responsible. A source patch would be speculative.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
Fixer collected a `munin-node` profile in which all sampled CPU passed through the kernel’s `perf_ctx_enable` symbol. However, `/proc` reported the process sleeping at 0.9% CPU, and `strace` recorded `pselect6` calls waiting about 1.8–2 seconds before timing out. Those observations do not demonstrate a busy loop or identify a Munin code-level cause. The entrypoint delegates to `Net::Server::Fork`; the evidence does not distinguish its event loop from normal idle waiting, Perl runtime behavior, or another cause. No source change is justified, so no effect from a patch is claimed. The captured PID was absent during validation, preventing an independent reproduction.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` — blocked because `Build.PL` cannot find `Module::Build`.
- `make check` — unavailable; the root Makefile has no `check` target.
- `make test` — blocked by the same missing `Module::Build` dependency.
- `perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node` — passed (`syntax OK`).
- Bounded reproduction check: `ps -p 3947104 -o pid,stat,pcpu,etime,wchan,args` returned only the column headers; the collected process was no longer present. No independent reproduction was established.
- No files were changed. The workspace is on `master`; `HACKING.pod` directs bug fixes to `stable-2.0`, but no branch-targeted patch is warranted.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: ok

No actionable findings. `patch-output.txt` recommends a diagnosis-only response, classifies confidence as `inferred`, and lists no source changes. Its explanation and validation results match the evidence; the workspace diff is empty.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Codex suba

[truncated 15284 bytes]

Response

## Plan Pass

The scout’s source trace reinforces the no-patch diagnosis: `Munin::Node::Server` inherits its listener loop from `Net::Server::Fork`; Munin’s local blocking request read is interrupted by `SIGALRM`, and plugin pipe polling is a separate path. No targeted event-loop tests or local wakeup helper were found, so the evidence still doesn’t connect the reported samples to a Munin busy loop.

## Patch Pass

The independent source review confirms the diagnosis: `munin-node` delegates its accept loop to `Net::Server::Fork`; the only local `select()` path found is plugin child-pipe I/O, which does not explain the captured sleeping process. No source change is supported by the available evidence.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: fix-needed

## Findings
- `patch-output.txt` contains only a diagnosis paragraph, not a reviewable patch report. It omits the required subject and sections, including `## Evidence Confidence`, `## Git Add Paths`, and `## Validation`. Resubmit it in the required format; confidence should be `inferred`, and paths should be `None`.
- No source diff is present in the workspace. That is consistent with the indirect evidence: the captured process was sleeping and `pselect6` timed out, while the local `select()` loop is for plugin pipes. Don’t add a speculative source change without stronger evidence.
- The project docs and subsystem scan support that conclusion: `HACKING.pod` documents `stable-2.0` for bug fixes, and no relevant local listener-loop helper was found.

## Refinement Pass 1

Subject: Diagnose munin-node CPU profile before proposing a source change

## Commit Message
No source change. The available profile and syscall trace do not establish a Munin busy loop, so a code fix would be speculative. This response addresses the review’s request for the required report sections and evidence classification.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
Fixer’s profile attributes all sampled CPU to the kernel symbol `perf_ctx_enable`, while the captured `pselect6` calls timed out after roughly two seconds and `/proc` recorded `munin-node` sleeping. The entrypoint delegates serving to `Munin::Node::Server` and `Net::Server::Fork`; the local `select()` path found is for plugin child pipes, and the evidence does not link it to the profile. I made no source change. The expected effect is to avoid an unsupported upstream fix until a CPU-consuming Munin code path is identified.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` — attempted from the workspace root; failed because `Module::Build` is unavailable (`Can't locate Module/Build.pm in @INC`).
- `make check` — attempted; the Makefile has no `check` target.
- `perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node` — passed (`syntax OK`).
- Bounded reproduction attempt, `ps -p 3947104 -o pid,stat,pcpu,etime,wchan,args` — the captured PID was absent, so reproduction was not possible.
- `HACKING.pod` documents `stable-2.0` as the bug-fix base. No relevant local listener-loop helper was found; `do_with_timeout` is used for timeouts but does not establish the cause here.

## Review Pass 2

RESULT: ok

The refinement addresses the prior review: it includes the required sections, classifies confidence as `inferred`, and clearly explains why no source change is justified by the indirect evidence. The workspace has no source diff. Validation names the failed root build and blocker, the unavailable `make check` target, the focused syntax check, and the reproduction attempt that could not run because the captured PID was absent. It also records the documented bug-fix branch convention and the lack of a relevant local listener-loop helper.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Codex suba

[truncated 15284 bytes]

Response

## Plan Pass

The scout’s source trace reinforces the no-patch diagnosis: `Munin::Node::Server` inherits its listener loop from `Net::Server::Fork`; Munin’s local blocking request read is interrupted by `SIGALRM`, and plugin pipe polling is a separate path. No targeted event-loop tests or local wakeup helper were found, so the evidence still doesn’t connect the reported samples to a Munin busy loop.

## Patch Pass

The independent source review confirms the diagnosis: `munin-node` delegates its accept loop to `Net::Server::Fork`; the only local `select()` path found is plugin child-pipe I/O, which does not explain the captured sleeping process. No source change is supported by the available evidence.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: fix-needed

## Findings
- `patch-output.txt` contains only a diagnosis paragraph, not a reviewable patch report. It omits the required subject and sections, including `## Evidence Confidence`, `## Git Add Paths`, and `## Validation`. Resubmit it in the required format; confidence should be `inferred`, and paths should be `None`.
- No source diff is present in the workspace. That is consistent with the indirect evidence: the captured process was sleeping and `pselect6` timed out, while the local `select()` loop is for plugin pipes. Don’t add a speculative source change without stronger evidence.
- The project docs and subsystem scan support that conclusion: `HACKING.pod` documents `stable-2.0` for bug fixes, and no relevant local listener-loop helper was found.

## Refinement Pass 1

Subject: Diagnose munin-node CPU profile before proposing a source change

## Commit Message
No source change. The available profile and syscall trace do not establish a Munin busy loop, so a code fix would be speculative. This response addresses the review’s request for the required report sections and evidence classification.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
Fixer’s profile attributes all sampled CPU to the kernel symbol `perf_ctx_enable`, while the captured `pselect6` calls timed out after roughly two seconds and `/proc` recorded `munin-node` sleeping. The entrypoint delegates serving to `Munin::Node::Server` and `Net::Server::Fork`; the local `select()` path found is for plugin child pipes, and the evidence does not link it to the profile. I made no source change. The expected effect is to avoid an unsupported upstream fix until a CPU-consuming Munin code path is identified.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` — attempted from the workspace root; failed because `Module::Build` is unavailable (`Can't locate Module/Build.pm in @INC`).
- `make check` — attempted; the Makefile has no `check` target.
- `perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node` — passed (`syntax OK`).
- Bounded reproduction attempt, `ps -p 3947104 -o pid,stat,pcpu,etime,wchan,args` — the captured PID was absent, so reproduction was not possible.
- `HACKING.pod` documents `stable-2.0` as the bug-fix base. No relevant local listener-loop helper was found; `do_with_timeout` is used for timeouts but does not establish the cause here.

## Review Pass 2

RESULT: ok

The refinement addresses the prior review: it includes the required sections, classifies confidence as `inferred`, and clearly explains why no source change is justified by the indirect evidence. The workspace has no source diff. Validation names the failed root build and blocker, the unavailable `make check` target, the focused syntax check, and the reproduction attempt that could not run because the captured PID was absent. It also records the documented bug-fix branch convention and the lack of a relevant local listener-loop helper.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Codex suba

[truncated 15284 bytes]

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem
The evidence shows `munin-node` sleeping in `pselect6` with 1–2 second timeouts. It does not establish runaway CPU or a script-level busy poll: the process was sleeping, and the trace contains only three calls. The node entrypoint delegates its server loop to `Net::Server::Fork`; the code inspected here does not establish the cause of those waits.

## Evidence Confidence
**inferred** — no-patch diagnosis plan. The captured profile and backtrace do not prove a Munin defect. Before considering a source patch, collect a fresh language-level stack or trace correlated with CPU use and identify the caller responsible for the repeated waits.

## Proposed Subject
No source patch proposed. Report the evidence as insufficient to attribute a busy-poll defect to Munin or Perl.

## Patch Plan
No edits in this pass. Inspect `script/munin-node` and `lib/Munin/Node/Server.pm` first; the server loop is delegated to `Net::Server::Fork`. `lib/Munin/Node/OS.pm` uses blocking `select` while reading child pipes, which does not explain the observed timed `pselect6` calls. No prior Fixer patch or relevant local wrapper for the daemon’s polling loop was found. If later evidence identifies a Munin code path, follow `CONTRIBUTING.md` and `HACKING.pod` conventions, including Perl strictness/warnings and file-local style; base upstream work on `master`, as HACKING identifies it as the development branch. Avoid a speculative change or awkward control-flow workaround.

## Risks
A patch based on this profile alone could alter normal server waiting behavior without fixing a demonstrated issue. The `perf_ctx_enable` kernel symbol and sleeping state do not by themselves identify the source of CPU use.

## Validation
No patch is planned, so there is no patch validation to run. For a future investigation, first try project-level `make` from the workspace root, then `make check` if available; the Makefile lists `make test` as the project test target and does not show a `check` target. If project-level commands fail due to missing generated files or dependencies, record the exact command and failure, then run the narrowest relevant reproducible check. Independently repeat a bounded, observational `ps`/`strace` capture of the node process while the reported signal is present; the existing trace alone cannot demonstrate a busy-poll failure.

## Patch Pass

**Subject:** Diagnose Munin node polling evidence before proposing a fix

## Commit Message
No source changes. The available evidence does not identify a Munin code defect to fix safely.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
The collected signal is a profile of `munin-node` whose samples passed through the kernel’s `perf_ctx_enable`, plus three `pselect6` calls that timed out after roughly 1.8–2 seconds. `/proc` reports the process as sleeping. This does not establish a busy loop or identify its cause. The node script delegates its server loop to `Net::Server::Fork`; Munin’s `Munin::Node::OS` also uses blocking `select` to read child pipes, but that code does not explain the timed waits shown. No code change was made: the expected effect of a speculative patch is unknown, so stronger process-level evidence is needed before attributing the signal to Munin or Perl.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` — blocked: `Build.PL` cannot find `Module/Build.pm`.
- `make check` — unavailable: the Makefile has no `check` target.
- `perl -Ilib -c script/munin-node` — blocked because the script’s taint-mode shebang requires `-T` on the command line.
- `ps -eo pid,stat,pcpu,etime,wchan,args | rg 'munin-node|PID'` — found no Munin node process in this workspace to trace, so independent reproduction was not possible. No focused test was run.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: fix-needed

## Findings
- `## Validation` is incomplete: after `make` failed because `Module/Build.pm` is missing, the report says no focused check was run. The corrected narrow check, `perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node`, succeeds with `syntax OK`; update the report to include it. The no-patch diagnosis itself is justified: the evidence does not identify a Munin code defect, and the workspace has no source changes.

## Refinement Pass 1

Subject: Diagnose Munin node polling evidence before proposing a fix

## Commit Message
No source changes. The evidence does not identify a Munin code defect to fix safely.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
The collected signal is a `munin-node` profile with samples attributed to the kernel’s `perf_ctx_enable`, three timed-out `pselect6` calls, and a process state reported as sleeping. That evidence does not establish a busy loop or its cause. The entrypoint delegates its server loop to `Net::Server::Fork`; no Munin code path was identified that explains the timed waits. No patch was made because the signal remains indirect, and a speculative change could alter normal waiting without addressing a demonstrated defect.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- Review finding addressed: replaced the failed taint-mode check with `perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node`; it reports `syntax OK`.
- `make` — blocked because `Build.PL` cannot locate `Module/Build.pm`.
- `make check` — unavailable; the Makefile has no `check` target.
- Bounded process check — no `munin-node` process was present, so independent reproduction was not possible.
- No relevant local wrapper for the delegated server polling loop was found. Munin’s `Munin::Node::OS` has a blocking `select` for child-pipe reads, but that does not explain the timed calls in the evidence. The source tree is on `master`; `HACKING.pod` describes it as Munin’s development branch. No workspace files were changed.

## Review Pass 2

RESULT: ok

The refined response addresses the validation finding with the successful taint-mode syntax check. Its no-patch diagnosis matches the indirect evidence, and the workspace contains no source changes.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Codex suba

[truncated 15284 bytes]

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem
The evidence shows `munin-node` sleeping in `pselect6` with 1–2 second timeouts. It does not establish runaway CPU or a script-level busy poll: the process was sleeping, and the trace contains only three calls. The node entrypoint delegates its server loop to `Net::Server::Fork`; the code inspected here does not establish the cause of those waits.

## Evidence Confidence
**inferred** — no-patch diagnosis plan. The captured profile and backtrace do not prove a Munin defect. Before considering a source patch, collect a fresh language-level stack or trace correlated with CPU use and identify the caller responsible for the repeated waits.

## Proposed Subject
No source patch proposed. Report the evidence as insufficient to attribute a busy-poll defect to Munin or Perl.

## Patch Plan
No edits in this pass. Inspect `script/munin-node` and `lib/Munin/Node/Server.pm` first; the server loop is delegated to `Net::Server::Fork`. `lib/Munin/Node/OS.pm` uses blocking `select` while reading child pipes, which does not explain the observed timed `pselect6` calls. No prior Fixer patch or relevant local wrapper for the daemon’s polling loop was found. If later evidence identifies a Munin code path, follow `CONTRIBUTING.md` and `HACKING.pod` conventions, including Perl strictness/warnings and file-local style; base upstream work on `master`, as HACKING identifies it as the development branch. Avoid a speculative change or awkward control-flow workaround.

## Risks
A patch based on this profile alone could alter normal server waiting behavior without fixing a demonstrated issue. The `perf_ctx_enable` kernel symbol and sleeping state do not by themselves identify the source of CPU use.

## Validation
No patch is planned, so there is no patch validation to run. For a future investigation, first try project-level `make` from the workspace root, then `make check` if available; the Makefile lists `make test` as the project test target and does not show a `check` target. If project-level commands fail due to missing generated files or dependencies, record the exact command and failure, then run the narrowest relevant reproducible check. Independently repeat a bounded, observational `ps`/`strace` capture of the node process while the reported signal is present; the existing trace alone cannot demonstrate a busy-poll failure.

## Patch Pass

**Subject:** Diagnose Munin node polling evidence before proposing a fix

## Commit Message
No source changes. The available evidence does not identify a Munin code defect to fix safely.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
The collected signal is a profile of `munin-node` whose samples passed through the kernel’s `perf_ctx_enable`, plus three `pselect6` calls that timed out after roughly 1.8–2 seconds. `/proc` reports the process as sleeping. This does not establish a busy loop or identify its cause. The node script delegates its server loop to `Net::Server::Fork`; Munin’s `Munin::Node::OS` also uses blocking `select` to read child pipes, but that code does not explain the timed waits shown. No code change was made: the expected effect of a speculative patch is unknown, so stronger process-level evidence is needed before attributing the signal to Munin or Perl.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` — blocked: `Build.PL` cannot find `Module/Build.pm`.
- `make check` — unavailable: the Makefile has no `check` target.
- `perl -Ilib -c script/munin-node` — blocked because the script’s taint-mode shebang requires `-T` on the command line.
- `ps -eo pid,stat,pcpu,etime,wchan,args | rg 'munin-node|PID'` — found no Munin node process in this workspace to trace, so independent reproduction was not possible. No focused test was run.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: fix-needed

## Findings
- `## Validation` is incomplete: after `make` failed because `Module/Build.pm` is missing, the report says no focused check was run. The corrected narrow check, `perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node`, succeeds with `syntax OK`; update the report to include it. The no-patch diagnosis itself is justified: the evidence does not identify a Munin code defect, and the workspace has no source changes.

## Refinement Pass 1

Subject: Diagnose Munin node polling evidence before proposing a fix

## Commit Message
No source changes. The evidence does not identify a Munin code defect to fix safely.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
The collected signal is a `munin-node` profile with samples attributed to the kernel’s `perf_ctx_enable`, three timed-out `pselect6` calls, and a process state reported as sleeping. That evidence does not establish a busy loop or its cause. The entrypoint delegates its server loop to `Net::Server::Fork`; no Munin code path was identified that explains the timed waits. No patch was made because the signal remains indirect, and a speculative change could alter normal waiting without addressing a demonstrated defect.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- Review finding addressed: replaced the failed taint-mode check with `perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node`; it reports `syntax OK`.
- `make` — blocked because `Build.PL` cannot locate `Module/Build.pm`.
- `make check` — unavailable; the Makefile has no `check` target.
- Bounded process check — no `munin-node` process was present, so independent reproduction was not possible.
- No relevant local wrapper for the delegated server polling loop was found. Munin’s `Munin::Node::OS` has a blocking `select` for child-pipe reads, but that does not explain the timed calls in the evidence. The source tree is on `master`; `HACKING.pod` describes it as Munin’s development branch. No workspace files were changed.

## Review Pass 2

RESULT: ok

The refined response addresses the validation finding with the successful taint-mode syntax check. Its no-patch diagnosis matches the indirect evidence, and the workspace contains no source changes.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

Response

## Plan Pass



## Workflow Note

model: gpt-6-luna

{"type":"thread.started","thread_id":"01a0dea3-0b89-75b0-9964-5440515b56f7"}
{"type":"item.completed","item":{"id":"item_0","type":"error","message":"Model metadata for `gpt-6-luna` not found. Defaulting to fallback metadata; this can degrade performance and cause issues."}}
{"type":"turn.started"}
{"type":"error","message":"exceeded retry limit, last status: 429 Too Many Requests, request id: e086f22c-ed27-4432-95d1-9293fd4ff36c"}
{"type":"turn.failed","error":{"message":"exceeded retry limit, last status: 429 Too Many Requests, request id: e086f22c-ed27-4432-95d1-9293fd4ff36c"}}

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

Response

## Plan Pass



## Workflow Note

model: gpt-6-luna

{"type":"thread.started","thread_id":"01a0de5c-268d-7133-ad8e-4fcc97ba9ef2"}
{"type":"item.completed","item":{"id":"item_0","type":"error","message":"Model metadata for `gpt-6-luna` not found. Defaulting to fallback metadata; this can degrade performance and cause issues."}}
{"type":"turn.started"}
{"type":"error","message":"You’ve hit your usage limit. Try again at 8:32 PM."}
{"type":"turn.failed","error":{"message":"You’ve hit your usage limit. Try again at 8:32 PM."}}

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

Response

## Plan Pass



## Workflow Note

model: gpt-6-luna

{"type":"thread.started","thread_id":"01a0de19-8cfd-7c72-8b21-34a28cd9fbb2"}
{"type":"item.completed","item":{"id":"item_0","type":"error","message":"Model metadata for `gpt-6-luna` not found. Defaulting to fallback metadata; this can degrade performance and cause issues."}}
{"type":"turn.started"}
{"type":"error","message":"You’ve hit your usage limit. Try again at 8:32 PM."}
{"type":"turn.failed","error":{"message":"You’ve hit your usage limit. Try again at 8:32 PM."}}

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

Response

## Plan Pass



## Workflow Note

model: gpt-6-luna

{"type":"thread.started","thread_id":"01a0dddc-a154-7433-9bf3-9c442b48cc22"}
{"type":"item.completed","item":{"id":"item_0","type":"error","message":"Model metadata for `gpt-6-luna` not found. Defaulting to fallback metadata; this can degrade performance and cause issues."}}
{"type":"turn.started"}
{"type":"error","message":"You’ve hit your usage limit. Try again at 8:32 PM."}
{"type":"turn.failed","error":{"message":"You’ve hit your usage limit. Try again at 8:32 PM."}}

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

Response

## Plan Pass



## Workflow Note

model: gpt-6-luna

{"type":"thread.started","thread_id":"01a0dda2-1347-7b83-ac44-81f051ad09b7"}
{"type":"item.completed","item":{"id":"item_0","type":"error","message":"Model metadata for `gpt-6-luna` not found. Defaulting to fallback metadata; this can degrade performance and cause issues."}}
{"type":"turn.started"}
{"type":"error","message":"You’ve hit your usage limit. Try again at 8:32 PM."}
{"type":"turn.failed","error":{"message":"You’ve hit your usage limit. Try again at 8:32 PM."}}

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

Response

## Plan Pass



## Workflow Note

model: gpt-6-luna

{"type":"thread.started","thread_id":"01a0dd4d-a192-7151-b180-240b68fce236"}
{"type":"item.completed","item":{"id":"item_0","type":"error","message":"Model metadata for `gpt-6-luna` not found. Defaulting to fallback metadata; this can degrade performance and cause issues."}}
{"type":"turn.started"}
{"type":"error","message":"You’ve hit your usage limit. Try again at 3:32 PM."}
{"type":"turn.failed","error":{"message":"You’ve hit your usage limit. Try again at 3:32 PM."}}

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

Response

## Plan Pass



## Workflow Note

model: gpt-6-luna

{"type":"thread.started","thread_id":"01a0dd08-00ec-7433-9259-d3f0785bd865"}
{"type":"item.completed","item":{"id":"item_0","type":"error","message":"Model metadata for `gpt-6-luna` not found. Defaulting to fallback metadata; this can degrade performance and cause issues."}}
{"type":"turn.started"}
{"type":"error","message":"You’ve hit your usage limit. Try again at 3:32 PM."}
{"type":"turn.failed","error":{"message":"You’ve hit your usage limit. Try again at 3:32 PM."}}

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Codex suba

[truncated 15284 bytes]

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem
Fixer reported a suspected `munin-node` busy-poll loop, but the captured syscalls are timed `pselect6` waits (about 1.8–2 seconds each), not evidence of a tight polling loop. The trace doesn’t identify which application code issued them.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

No source patch is justified by the bundle or inspected code. The `script/munin-node` entrypoint delegates socket handling to `Net::Server::Fork`; the inspected node paths show blocking reads. `Munin::Node::OS::_read_from_child` also uses blocking `select` without a timeout, rather than a zero-timeout retry loop. This is a diagnosis from indirect evidence, not an independently reproduced failure. Before reconsidering a patch, collect a language-level stack or bounded syscall trace from the affected daemon that ties CPU use to application code.

## Proposed Subject
No source patch planned; request targeted runtime evidence for the `munin-node` CPU report.

## Patch Plan
No edits. If further evidence identifies a source-level loop, target the responsible `munin` code rather than Perl first. Follow `HACKING.pod`’s Perl conventions and base any upstream patch on `master`. `Munin::Node::OS::_read_from_child` is the local helper for plugin pipe IO, but the inspected server path does not establish it as the source of the captured waits; no relevant helper supports a patch now. There is no prior Fixer patch to replace, and no control-flow change is warranted.

## Risks
A speculative patch could alter daemon or plugin IO behavior without addressing the observed signal. The available profile is indirect: `perf_ctx_enable` is a kernel sample attribution, and the syscall excerpt shows timed waits rather than CPU spinning.

## Validation
No patch-specific compile or test is planned. For any later patch, start from the workspace root with the project-level `make` build and `make test`; the Makefile has no `check` target. For bounded independent reproduction, capture a short (`5s`) syscall trace and process CPU/wait state for the affected daemon in an authorized environment, then correlate it with a Perl-level stack. Do not claim reproduction unless that evidence demonstrates the reported behavior.

## Patch Pass

Subject: Diagnose Munin node CPU report without speculative source changes

## Commit Message
The evidence points to an idle timed wait, not a demonstrated busy loop in `munin-node`. No source patch is justified without evidence tying CPU consumption to application code.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
Fixer’s captured signal reports `perf_ctx_enable` as the hot kernel symbol, but the accompanying trace shows `pselect6` timing out after about 1.8–2 seconds. The process snapshot reports a sleeping state and `poll_schedule_timeout` wait channel. Together, these details suggest the “busy poll” classification may be mistaken, but they do not identify a source-level cause. Inspection found that `script/munin-node` delegates socket handling to `Net::Server::Fork`, while inspected node reads block rather than retry in a tight loop. No code was changed; the next useful step is a stack or trace that connects CPU use to a specific application path.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- From the workspace root, `make` failed because `Build.PL` could not load `Module/Build.pm`. The Makefile has no `check` target; `make check` failed with “No rule to make target 'check'.”
- As a narrower clean-tree check, `PERL5LIB=lib perl -T -c script/munin-node` passed with `syntax OK`.
- The bounded reproduction check found no process at PID `3947104` and no visible `munin-node` process in this workspace, so an independent runtime trace was unavailable. No failure was reproduced.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: fix-needed

## Findings
- The report omits the upstream branch guidance and local-helper assessment. `HACKING.pod` says bug-fix patches should target `stable-2.0`, which takes precedence over the usual `master` default; the report should name that convention and clarify that no source patch is being proposed. It should also state whether `Munin::Node::OS::_read_from_child` is relevant to the observed server wait. The indirect evidence and `inferred` confidence are otherwise handled appropriately, and the worktree has no source diff.

## Refinement Pass 1

Subject: Clarify Munin node CPU evidence without a speculative fix

## Commit Message
The captured waits do not establish a busy loop in `munin-node`. No source change is proposed; the caller needs to be identified before attributing the CPU report to Munin or Perl.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
Fixer reports `perf_ctx_enable` as the hot kernel symbol, while the trace shows `pselect6` timing out after about 1.8–2 seconds and `/proc` reports the process sleeping in `poll_schedule_timeout`. The server delegates socket handling to `Net::Server::Fork`, so a timed event-loop wait is one possibility, but the trace does not identify the caller.

`Munin::Node::OS::_read_from_child` is the local helper that waits for plugin subprocess output. Its `select` call passes no timeout, unlike the finite timeout shown in the captured `pselect6` calls; it therefore does not match that signal. No source code changed. The refined diagnosis avoids attributing the report to that helper or claiming a confirmed Munin bug; a language-level stack or equivalent trace is still needed to identify the caller.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` from the workspace root failed because `Build.PL` could not load `Module/Build.pm`. `make check` is unavailable: the Makefile has no `check` target.
- The narrower check `PERL5LIB=lib perl -T -c script/munin-node` passed with `syntax OK`.
- The earlier bounded process check (`ps -p 3947104 ...; pgrep -af '[m]unin-node'`) found no target process, so an independent runtime reproduction was unavailable.
- `CONTRIBUTING.md` points to `HACKING.pod`; that guide directs bug-fix patches to `stable-2.0`. The earlier plan’s `master` suggestion was incorrect; since this diagnosis proposes no patch, no merge-request base is selected.

## Review Pass 2

RESULT: ok

The refined report accurately keeps confidence at `inferred`, proposes no source changes, and distinguishes the timed `pselect6` waits from `_read_from_child`, whose `select` call has no timeout. It also incorporates the documented `stable-2.0` bug-fix guidance and reports the build blocker. No source diff is present.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Codex suba

[truncated 15284 bytes]

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem
Fixer reported a suspected `munin-node` busy-poll loop, but the captured syscalls are timed `pselect6` waits (about 1.8–2 seconds each), not evidence of a tight polling loop. The trace doesn’t identify which application code issued them.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

No source patch is justified by the bundle or inspected code. The `script/munin-node` entrypoint delegates socket handling to `Net::Server::Fork`; the inspected node paths show blocking reads. `Munin::Node::OS::_read_from_child` also uses blocking `select` without a timeout, rather than a zero-timeout retry loop. This is a diagnosis from indirect evidence, not an independently reproduced failure. Before reconsidering a patch, collect a language-level stack or bounded syscall trace from the affected daemon that ties CPU use to application code.

## Proposed Subject
No source patch planned; request targeted runtime evidence for the `munin-node` CPU report.

## Patch Plan
No edits. If further evidence identifies a source-level loop, target the responsible `munin` code rather than Perl first. Follow `HACKING.pod`’s Perl conventions and base any upstream patch on `master`. `Munin::Node::OS::_read_from_child` is the local helper for plugin pipe IO, but the inspected server path does not establish it as the source of the captured waits; no relevant helper supports a patch now. There is no prior Fixer patch to replace, and no control-flow change is warranted.

## Risks
A speculative patch could alter daemon or plugin IO behavior without addressing the observed signal. The available profile is indirect: `perf_ctx_enable` is a kernel sample attribution, and the syscall excerpt shows timed waits rather than CPU spinning.

## Validation
No patch-specific compile or test is planned. For any later patch, start from the workspace root with the project-level `make` build and `make test`; the Makefile has no `check` target. For bounded independent reproduction, capture a short (`5s`) syscall trace and process CPU/wait state for the affected daemon in an authorized environment, then correlate it with a Perl-level stack. Do not claim reproduction unless that evidence demonstrates the reported behavior.

## Patch Pass

Subject: Diagnose Munin node CPU report without speculative source changes

## Commit Message
The evidence points to an idle timed wait, not a demonstrated busy loop in `munin-node`. No source patch is justified without evidence tying CPU consumption to application code.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
Fixer’s captured signal reports `perf_ctx_enable` as the hot kernel symbol, but the accompanying trace shows `pselect6` timing out after about 1.8–2 seconds. The process snapshot reports a sleeping state and `poll_schedule_timeout` wait channel. Together, these details suggest the “busy poll” classification may be mistaken, but they do not identify a source-level cause. Inspection found that `script/munin-node` delegates socket handling to `Net::Server::Fork`, while inspected node reads block rather than retry in a tight loop. No code was changed; the next useful step is a stack or trace that connects CPU use to a specific application path.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- From the workspace root, `make` failed because `Build.PL` could not load `Module/Build.pm`. The Makefile has no `check` target; `make check` failed with “No rule to make target 'check'.”
- As a narrower clean-tree check, `PERL5LIB=lib perl -T -c script/munin-node` passed with `syntax OK`.
- The bounded reproduction check found no process at PID `3947104` and no visible `munin-node` process in this workspace, so an independent runtime trace was unavailable. No failure was reproduced.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: fix-needed

## Findings
- The report omits the upstream branch guidance and local-helper assessment. `HACKING.pod` says bug-fix patches should target `stable-2.0`, which takes precedence over the usual `master` default; the report should name that convention and clarify that no source patch is being proposed. It should also state whether `Munin::Node::OS::_read_from_child` is relevant to the observed server wait. The indirect evidence and `inferred` confidence are otherwise handled appropriately, and the worktree has no source diff.

## Refinement Pass 1

Subject: Clarify Munin node CPU evidence without a speculative fix

## Commit Message
The captured waits do not establish a busy loop in `munin-node`. No source change is proposed; the caller needs to be identified before attributing the CPU report to Munin or Perl.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
Fixer reports `perf_ctx_enable` as the hot kernel symbol, while the trace shows `pselect6` timing out after about 1.8–2 seconds and `/proc` reports the process sleeping in `poll_schedule_timeout`. The server delegates socket handling to `Net::Server::Fork`, so a timed event-loop wait is one possibility, but the trace does not identify the caller.

`Munin::Node::OS::_read_from_child` is the local helper that waits for plugin subprocess output. Its `select` call passes no timeout, unlike the finite timeout shown in the captured `pselect6` calls; it therefore does not match that signal. No source code changed. The refined diagnosis avoids attributing the report to that helper or claiming a confirmed Munin bug; a language-level stack or equivalent trace is still needed to identify the caller.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` from the workspace root failed because `Build.PL` could not load `Module/Build.pm`. `make check` is unavailable: the Makefile has no `check` target.
- The narrower check `PERL5LIB=lib perl -T -c script/munin-node` passed with `syntax OK`.
- The earlier bounded process check (`ps -p 3947104 ...; pgrep -af '[m]unin-node'`) found no target process, so an independent runtime reproduction was unavailable.
- `CONTRIBUTING.md` points to `HACKING.pod`; that guide directs bug-fix patches to `stable-2.0`. The earlier plan’s `master` suggestion was incorrect; since this diagnosis proposes no patch, no merge-request base is selected.

## Review Pass 2

RESULT: ok

The refined report accurately keeps confidence at `inferred`, proposes no source changes, and distinguishes the timed `pselect6` waits from `_read_from_child`, whose `select` call has no timeout. It also incorporates the documented `stable-2.0` bug-fix guidance and reports the build blocker. No source diff is present.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

Response

## Plan Pass



## Workflow Note

model: gpt-6-luna

{"type":"thread.started","thread_id":"01a0dc33-532c-7192-b99b-c2b2de4e88b2"}
{"type":"item.completed","item":{"id":"item_0","type":"error","message":"Model metadata for `gpt-6-luna` not found. Defaulting to fallback metadata; this can degrade performance and cause issues."}}
{"type":"turn.started"}
{"type":"error","message":"exceeded retry limit, last status: 429 Too Many Requests, request id: a97a3957-1d19-4670-8c6a-d1d97812d17c"}
{"type":"turn.failed","error":{"message":"exceeded retry limit, last status: 429 Too Many Requests, request id: a97a3957-1d19-4670-8c6a-d1d97812d17c"}}

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

Response

## Plan Pass



## Workflow Note

model: gpt-6-luna

{"type":"thread.started","thread_id":"01a0dbed-c6d0-7563-bfc8-602ed01bdc63"}
{"type":"item.completed","item":{"id":"item_0","type":"error","message":"Model metadata for `gpt-6-luna` not found. Defaulting to fallback metadata; this can degrade performance and cause issues."}}
{"type":"turn.started"}
{"type":"error","message":"exceeded retry limit, last status: 429 Too Many Requests, request id: 3e0812ea-872f-4710-b865-7ed369ab9a7b"}
{"type":"turn.failed","error":{"message":"exceeded retry limit, last status: 429 Too Many Requests, request id: 3e0812ea-872f-4710-b865-7ed369ab9a7b"}}

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

Response

## Plan Pass



## Workflow Note

model: gpt-6-luna

{"type":"thread.started","thread_id":"01a0dbb5-53b4-7651-9ee4-8c3aa29a6ca2"}
{"type":"item.completed","item":{"id":"item_0","type":"error","message":"Model metadata for `gpt-6-luna` not found. Defaulting to fallback metadata; this can degrade performance and cause issues."}}
{"type":"turn.started"}
{"type":"error","message":"exceeded retry limit, last status: 429 Too Many Requests, request id: d3980a17-5ddb-4fc8-8150-ee09a411a791"}
{"type":"turn.failed","error":{"message":"exceeded retry limit, last status: 429 Too Many Requests, request id: d3980a17-5ddb-4fc8-8150-ee09a411a791"}}

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

Response

## Plan Pass



## Workflow Note

model: gpt-6-luna

{"type":"thread.started","thread_id":"01a0db6a-c7dd-7181-beaf-ea16876574ea"}
{"type":"item.completed","item":{"id":"item_0","type":"error","message":"Model metadata for `gpt-6-luna` not found. Defaulting to fallback metadata; this can degrade performance and cause issues."}}
{"type":"turn.started"}
{"type":"error","message":"exceeded retry limit, last status: 429 Too Many Requests, request id: da8a4dc5-4c04-4435-80da-b00a5bb9cc0d"}
{"type":"turn.failed","error":{"message":"exceeded retry limit, last status: 429 Too Many Requests, request id: da8a4dc5-4c04-4435-80da-b00a5bb9cc0d"}}

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

Response

## Plan Pass



## Workflow Note

model: gpt-6-luna

{"type":"thread.started","thread_id":"01a0db31-6691-7122-8fd7-e31731cbef7b"}
{"type":"item.completed","item":{"id":"item_0","type":"error","message":"Model metadata for `gpt-6-luna` not found. Defaulting to fallback metadata; this can degrade performance and cause issues."}}
{"type":"turn.started"}
{"type":"error","message":"exceeded retry limit, last status: 429 Too Many Requests, request id: 05788e0e-6d28-4237-897d-f91c1c48ae11"}
{"type":"turn.failed","error":{"message":"exceeded retry limit, last status: 429 Too Many Requests, request id: 05788e0e-6d28-4237-897d-f91c1c48ae11"}}

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

Response

## Plan Pass



## Workflow Note

model: gpt-6-luna

{"type":"thread.started","thread_id":"01a0daf3-50d9-7a61-a680-f629a6d1a92a"}
{"type":"item.completed","item":{"id":"item_0","type":"error","message":"Model metadata for `gpt-6-luna` not found. Defaulting to fallback metadata; this can degrade performance and cause issues."}}
{"type":"turn.started"}
{"type":"error","message":"exceeded retry limit, last status: 429 Too Many Requests, request id: 88301214-cc49-423d-9e8a-627ff4f4100f"}
{"type":"turn.failed","error":{"message":"exceeded retry limit, last status: 429 Too Many Requests, request id: 88301214-cc49-423d-9e8a-627ff4f4100f"}}

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

Response

## Plan Pass



## Workflow Note

model: gpt-6-luna

{"type":"thread.started","thread_id":"01a0dab5-e54d-7c31-8d87-7a87363d419a"}
{"type":"item.completed","item":{"id":"item_0","type":"error","message":"Model metadata for `gpt-6-luna` not found. Defaulting to fallback metadata; this can degrade performance and cause issues."}}
{"type":"turn.started"}
{"type":"error","message":"exceeded retry limit, last status: 429 Too Many Requests, request id: 08b5af0b-0e25-43c3-8dce-d199fa02f937"}
{"type":"turn.failed","error":{"message":"exceeded retry limit, last status: 429 Too Many Requests, request id: 08b5af0b-0e25-43c3-8dce-d199fa02f937"}}

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

Response

## Plan Pass



## Workflow Note

model: gpt-6-luna

{"type":"thread.started","thread_id":"01a0da60-d915-7330-9624-2e0b8c27828a"}
{"type":"item.completed","item":{"id":"item_0","type":"error","message":"Model metadata for `gpt-6-luna` not found. Defaulting to fallback metadata; this can degrade performance and cause issues."}}
{"type":"turn.started"}
{"type":"error","message":"exceeded retry limit, last status: 429 Too Many Requests, request id: 48fc1258-ee77-4319-a7b7-a961b5b6f783"}
{"type":"turn.failed","error":{"message":"exceeded retry limit, last status: 429 Too Many Requests, request id: 48fc1258-ee77-4319-a7b7-a961b5b6f783"}}

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

Response

## Plan Pass



## Workflow Note

model: gpt-6-luna

{"type":"thread.started","thread_id":"01a0d9e9-eb85-7c00-a536-f8be2388d903"}
{"type":"item.completed","item":{"id":"item_0","type":"error","message":"Model metadata for `gpt-6-luna` not found. Defaulting to fallback metadata; this can degrade performance and cause issues."}}
{"type":"turn.started"}
{"type":"error","message":"exceeded retry limit, last status: 429 Too Many Requests, request id: 2b5ec7ef-912e-4667-b2fd-dbf570819242"}
{"type":"turn.failed","error":{"message":"exceeded retry limit, last status: 429 Too Many Requests, request id: 2b5ec7ef-912e-4667-b2fd-dbf570819242"}}

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

Response

## Plan Pass



## Workflow Note

model: gpt-6-luna

{"type":"thread.started","thread_id":"01a0d9a3-c258-7df2-91f3-3a46b0e32495"}
{"type":"item.completed","item":{"id":"item_0","type":"error","message":"Model metadata for `gpt-6-luna` not found. Defaulting to fallback metadata; this can degrade performance and cause issues."}}
{"type":"turn.started"}
{"type":"error","message":"exceeded retry limit, last status: 429 Too Many Requests, request id: c86190a1-e1b9-44dd-a58e-8a073fb3770d"}
{"type":"turn.failed","error":{"message":"exceeded retry limit, last status: 429 Too Many Requests, request id: c86190a1-e1b9-44dd-a58e-8a073fb3770d"}}

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

Response

## Plan Pass



## Workflow Note

model: gpt-6-luna

{"type":"thread.started","thread_id":"01a0d969-d5b6-7cd3-846a-ed7e4eaad626"}
{"type":"item.completed","item":{"id":"item_0","type":"error","message":"Model metadata for `gpt-6-luna` not found. Defaulting to fallback metadata; this can degrade performance and cause issues."}}
{"type":"turn.started"}
{"type":"error","message":"exceeded retry limit, last status: 429 Too Many Requests, request id: dcd706e3-f8bb-4bb5-ae35-b785a3031216"}
{"type":"turn.failed","error":{"message":"exceeded retry limit, last status: 429 Too Many Requests, request id: dcd706e3-f8bb-4bb5-ae35-b785a3031216"}}

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

Response

## Plan Pass



## Workflow Note

model: gpt-6-luna

{"type":"thread.started","thread_id":"01a0d930-16db-7913-891a-79ae9d0810b7"}
{"type":"item.completed","item":{"id":"item_0","type":"error","message":"Model metadata for `gpt-6-luna` not found. Defaulting to fallback metadata; this can degrade performance and cause issues."}}
{"type":"turn.started"}
{"type":"error","message":"exceeded retry limit, last status: 429 Too Many Requests, request id: 35553ee1-7afd-4658-8eff-bcb6f527b994"}
{"type":"turn.failed","error":{"message":"exceeded retry limit, last status: 429 Too Many Requests, request id: 35553ee1-7afd-4658-8eff-bcb6f527b994"}}

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

Response

## Plan Pass



## Workflow Note

model: gpt-6-luna

{"type":"thread.started","thread_id":"01a0d8ea-0993-7802-a0fe-1de28ad253cf"}
{"type":"item.completed","item":{"id":"item_0","type":"error","message":"Model metadata for `gpt-6-luna` not found. Defaulting to fallback metadata; this can degrade performance and cause issues."}}
{"type":"turn.started"}
{"type":"error","message":"exceeded retry limit, last status: 429 Too Many Requests, request id: 9ebccd41-58be-458a-b883-119088b8f38b"}
{"type":"turn.failed","error":{"message":"exceeded retry limit, last status: 429 Too Many Requests, request id: 9ebccd41-58be-458a-b883-119088b8f38b"}}

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

Response

## Plan Pass



## Workflow Note

model: gpt-6-luna

{"type":"thread.started","thread_id":"01a0d8b1-e187-7db2-97bd-258f58ecdd42"}
{"type":"item.completed","item":{"id":"item_0","type":"error","message":"Model metadata for `gpt-6-luna` not found. Defaulting to fallback metadata; this can degrade performance and cause issues."}}
{"type":"turn.started"}
{"type":"error","message":"exceeded retry limit, last status: 429 Too Many Requests, request id: 03e61900-916c-4fbd-8739-f86f6c855d3b"}
{"type":"turn.failed","error":{"message":"exceeded retry limit, last status: 429 Too Many Requests, request id: 03e61900-916c-4fbd-8739-f86f6c855d3b"}}

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

Response

## Plan Pass



## Workflow Note

model: gpt-6-luna

{"type":"thread.started","thread_id":"01a0d872-c21f-7b13-be83-9ef9d36322ff"}
{"type":"item.completed","item":{"id":"item_0","type":"error","message":"Model metadata for `gpt-6-luna` not found. Defaulting to fallback metadata; this can degrade performance and cause issues."}}
{"type":"turn.started"}
{"type":"error","message":"exceeded retry limit, last status: 429 Too Many Requests, request id: 733f95cc-e13a-4ed6-b9e1-3fd965056a0a"}
{"type":"turn.failed","error":{"message":"exceeded retry limit, last status: 429 Too Many Requests, request id: 733f95cc-e13a-4ed6-b9e1-3fd965056a0a"}}

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Codex suba

[truncated 3140 bytes]

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem
Fixer reports a Perl `munin-node` process as a likely busy poll, but the captured `strace` shows three `pselect6` calls timing out after roughly 1.8–2 seconds. The evidence does not tie the CPU samples to a Munin code path or establish runaway CPU behavior.

## Evidence Confidence
**inferred** — no source patch is justified by the available evidence. Source inspection found `script/munin-node` delegates serving to `Munin::Node::Server->run`; request reads are blocking, and the inspected child-I/O `select` has no timeout. The accept loop is inherited from `Net::Server::Fork`. Before considering a patch, collect a bounded trace of the reported process that shows repeated wakeups or a Munin-level hot path; the current timed waits do not show that failure.

## Proposed Subject
No patch proposed. Diagnose whether the reported CPU signal is reproducible and attributable to Munin before naming a user-facing fix.

## Patch Plan
Do not edit files in this pass. If additional evidence identifies a Munin code path, investigate the script/application entrypoint first and patch that path narrowly; do not patch Perl based on interpreter frames alone. Follow `CONTRIBUTING.md` and `HACKING.pod` conventions. The docs distinguish `stable-2.0` bug fixes from `master` development work; this investigation does not establish a patch target. For any upstream patch, confirm the applicable target branch and prepare against the upstream integration branch, not this Debian source snapshot. No relevant local event-loop wrapper was found; the inspected child-I/O helper uses Perl’s `select`, while the serving loop comes from an external module. Avoid adding control flow such as `goto` without a demonstrated need.

## Risks
Changing blocking server or child-I/O behavior without a reproducible failure could introduce connection-handling or timeout regressions. The evidence also leaves open whether the profiler signal reflects kernel sampling rather than Munin activity.

## Validation
From the workspace root, first try `make`, then `make check` only if that target exists; the Makefile exposes `build` and `test`, not `check`. If project-level build/test is blocked by missing dependencies or generated files, record the exact command and failure reason, then try the narrowest reproducible compile/test. Independently, if the reported process is still available, attempt a bounded 10-second `strace` attachment of its poll-family syscalls; this may require permission and a process ID, and should determine whether the timed waits repeat without claiming reproduction unless it actually demonstrates the reported failure. No validation commands were run during this planning pass.

## Patch Pass

Subject: Diagnose munin-node CPU report without speculative changes

## Commit Message
No source change. The available trace does not identify a Munin code path that should be patched.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
Fixer’s evidence reports `munin-node` CPU activity, but the captured kernel stack is in `pselect6` and the three `strace` entries show timed waits of about 1.8–2 seconds, not a demonstrated busy loop. Inspection found the entrypoint delegates serving to `Munin::Node::Server->run`; the request reads checked are blocking, and the accept loop is inherited from `Net::Server::Fork`. This does not establish a code-level cause, so I made no source change. The expected effect is to avoid an unsupported upstream patch until a trace ties repeated wakeups or CPU use to Munin code.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` failed because `Module::Build` is unavailable (`Can't locate Module/Build.pm` at `Build.PL` line 80).
- `make check` is not defined by the workspace Makefile.
- `perl -Ilib -c script/munin-node` first failed because taint mode was missing; `perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node` passed (`syntax OK`).
- The bounded independent reproduction attempt was blocked: the captured PID `3947104` is absent in this environment, so it could not be traced. No relevant local event-loop helper was found. No patch was made; the Debian workspace is on `master`, and any future upstream patch should use the upstream integration branch rather than a stable backport base.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: ok

Reviewed `patch-output.txt` and the workspace diff: no source changes are present, and `## Git Add Paths` correctly lists `None`. The `inferred` confidence matches the evidence: the captured `pselect6` calls time out, and the trace does not connect CPU activity to a Munin code path. The report also names the `make` blocker and the unavailable process for independent tracing. No relevant local event-loop helper was found; the branch-base guidance is consistent with `HACKING.pod`.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Codex suba

[truncated 3140 bytes]

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem
Fixer reports a Perl `munin-node` process as a likely busy poll, but the captured `strace` shows three `pselect6` calls timing out after roughly 1.8–2 seconds. The evidence does not tie the CPU samples to a Munin code path or establish runaway CPU behavior.

## Evidence Confidence
**inferred** — no source patch is justified by the available evidence. Source inspection found `script/munin-node` delegates serving to `Munin::Node::Server->run`; request reads are blocking, and the inspected child-I/O `select` has no timeout. The accept loop is inherited from `Net::Server::Fork`. Before considering a patch, collect a bounded trace of the reported process that shows repeated wakeups or a Munin-level hot path; the current timed waits do not show that failure.

## Proposed Subject
No patch proposed. Diagnose whether the reported CPU signal is reproducible and attributable to Munin before naming a user-facing fix.

## Patch Plan
Do not edit files in this pass. If additional evidence identifies a Munin code path, investigate the script/application entrypoint first and patch that path narrowly; do not patch Perl based on interpreter frames alone. Follow `CONTRIBUTING.md` and `HACKING.pod` conventions. The docs distinguish `stable-2.0` bug fixes from `master` development work; this investigation does not establish a patch target. For any upstream patch, confirm the applicable target branch and prepare against the upstream integration branch, not this Debian source snapshot. No relevant local event-loop wrapper was found; the inspected child-I/O helper uses Perl’s `select`, while the serving loop comes from an external module. Avoid adding control flow such as `goto` without a demonstrated need.

## Risks
Changing blocking server or child-I/O behavior without a reproducible failure could introduce connection-handling or timeout regressions. The evidence also leaves open whether the profiler signal reflects kernel sampling rather than Munin activity.

## Validation
From the workspace root, first try `make`, then `make check` only if that target exists; the Makefile exposes `build` and `test`, not `check`. If project-level build/test is blocked by missing dependencies or generated files, record the exact command and failure reason, then try the narrowest reproducible compile/test. Independently, if the reported process is still available, attempt a bounded 10-second `strace` attachment of its poll-family syscalls; this may require permission and a process ID, and should determine whether the timed waits repeat without claiming reproduction unless it actually demonstrates the reported failure. No validation commands were run during this planning pass.

## Patch Pass

Subject: Diagnose munin-node CPU report without speculative changes

## Commit Message
No source change. The available trace does not identify a Munin code path that should be patched.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
Fixer’s evidence reports `munin-node` CPU activity, but the captured kernel stack is in `pselect6` and the three `strace` entries show timed waits of about 1.8–2 seconds, not a demonstrated busy loop. Inspection found the entrypoint delegates serving to `Munin::Node::Server->run`; the request reads checked are blocking, and the accept loop is inherited from `Net::Server::Fork`. This does not establish a code-level cause, so I made no source change. The expected effect is to avoid an unsupported upstream patch until a trace ties repeated wakeups or CPU use to Munin code.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` failed because `Module::Build` is unavailable (`Can't locate Module/Build.pm` at `Build.PL` line 80).
- `make check` is not defined by the workspace Makefile.
- `perl -Ilib -c script/munin-node` first failed because taint mode was missing; `perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node` passed (`syntax OK`).
- The bounded independent reproduction attempt was blocked: the captured PID `3947104` is absent in this environment, so it could not be traced. No relevant local event-loop helper was found. No patch was made; the Debian workspace is on `master`, and any future upstream patch should use the upstream integration branch rather than a stable backport base.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: ok

Reviewed `patch-output.txt` and the workspace diff: no source changes are present, and `## Git Add Paths` correctly lists `None`. The `inferred` confidence matches the evidence: the captured `pselect6` calls time out, and the trace does not connect CPU activity to a Munin code path. The report also names the `make` blocker and the unavailable process for independent tracing. No relevant local event-loop helper was found; the branch-base guidance is consistent with `HACKING.pod`.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Codex suba

[truncated 3140 bytes]

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem
Fixer reports a likely busy-poll loop in `munin-node`, but the captured evidence does not establish one: the three `pselect6` calls shown wait for about 1.8–2 seconds and time out. The profile’s kernel symbol and Perl-interpreter frames do not identify a hot application-level loop.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Proposed Subject
No source patch planned; diagnose the reported CPU signal before proposing a fix.

## Patch Plan
- Start with `script/munin-node` and its `Munin::Node::Server` event-loop integration, as the evidence identifies a script entrypoint. Investigate Perl runtime behavior only if further evidence points to it.
- Collect a bounded, controlled reproduction with CPU measurements and syscall traces that can distinguish expected idle waits from repeated wakeups or application work. Do not infer a user-visible failure from this profiler-only signal.
- No prior Fixer patch is present to improve or replace. No source change is justified yet, so there is no control-flow or helper-API change to propose.
- `HACKING.pod` says bug-fix patches target `stable-2.0`; follow that maintainer convention if evidence later supports a patch.

## Risks
A speculative change to the server loop or Perl runtime could alter daemon behavior while addressing no demonstrated defect. The captured waits suggest the “busy-poll” classification may be misleading.

## Validation
- From the workspace root, try `make` and then `make check` if available before any focused compile. `Makefile` defines `make` as the build entrypoint and provides `make test`; `make check` is not listed among its targets.
- Make one bounded reproduction attempt using an isolated foreground node invocation and a short syscall/CPU capture. The current evidence cannot itself reproduce a failure; if the controlled run only shows timed waits, report that rather than claiming reproduction.
- No relevant local polling or IO wrapper is apparent in the inspected entrypoint; the server delegates to `Munin::Node::Server`/`Net::Server`. Follow existing integration rather than introducing a generic polling loop.

## Patch Pass

Subject: Diagnose munin-node CPU signal before changing source

## Commit Message
The captured signal does not establish a Munin busy loop. The trace shows `pselect6` timing out after roughly 1.8–2 seconds, while `/proc` reports the process sleeping in `poll_schedule_timeout`. Those observations fit a process waiting for activity; the kernel profile alone does not locate a Munin code defect. Leave the source unchanged pending stronger evidence.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
Fixer recorded 100% of sampled CPU passing through the kernel symbol `perf_ctx_enable`, three `pselect6` calls, and a sleeping `munin-node` process. The completed calls wait for about 1.8–2 seconds and time out, so the reported “busy poll” is not confirmed. The node delegates its listener loop to `Net::Server::Fork` (`lib/Munin/Node/Server.pm:4`); Munin’s separate child-output reader uses Perl `select` (`lib/Munin/Node/OS.pm:98-124`), but the evidence does not connect that reader—or plugin output—to this process signal. I made no code change because neither path is shown to be faulty. The expected effect is to avoid an unsupported upstream fix and keep investigation focused on collecting a trace that identifies repeated wakeups or application work.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` — failed: `Build.PL` cannot load `Module::Build`.
- `make check` — failed: the Makefile has no `check` target.
- `perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node` — passed.
- Bounded trace attempt: `timeout 6s strace -f -tt -e trace=pselect6,select,poll,ppoll perl -T -Ilib script/munin-node --foreground --config /dev/null` — blocked because ptrace is not permitted. A separate isolated run was not executed because its required cleanup command was rejected; no independent reproduction was obtained.
- No relevant local listener-loop wrapper was found: `Net::Server::Fork` owns that loop; `Munin::Node::OS::_read_from_child` uses Perl `select`. The workspace is on `master`; `HACKING.pod` explicitly directs bug-fix patches to `stable-2.0` if a patch is later justified.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: ok

The workspace has no source diff. `patch-output.txt` is a no-patch diagnosis with `inferred` confidence, consistent with the timed-out `pselect6` calls and sleeping `/proc` state in the evidence. It avoids claiming a reproduced failure, reports the build and trace blockers, and notes Munin’s local child-output reader and the maintainer’s stable-branch guidance.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Codex suba

[truncated 3140 bytes]

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem
Fixer reports a likely busy-poll loop in `munin-node`, but the captured evidence does not establish one: the three `pselect6` calls shown wait for about 1.8–2 seconds and time out. The profile’s kernel symbol and Perl-interpreter frames do not identify a hot application-level loop.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Proposed Subject
No source patch planned; diagnose the reported CPU signal before proposing a fix.

## Patch Plan
- Start with `script/munin-node` and its `Munin::Node::Server` event-loop integration, as the evidence identifies a script entrypoint. Investigate Perl runtime behavior only if further evidence points to it.
- Collect a bounded, controlled reproduction with CPU measurements and syscall traces that can distinguish expected idle waits from repeated wakeups or application work. Do not infer a user-visible failure from this profiler-only signal.
- No prior Fixer patch is present to improve or replace. No source change is justified yet, so there is no control-flow or helper-API change to propose.
- `HACKING.pod` says bug-fix patches target `stable-2.0`; follow that maintainer convention if evidence later supports a patch.

## Risks
A speculative change to the server loop or Perl runtime could alter daemon behavior while addressing no demonstrated defect. The captured waits suggest the “busy-poll” classification may be misleading.

## Validation
- From the workspace root, try `make` and then `make check` if available before any focused compile. `Makefile` defines `make` as the build entrypoint and provides `make test`; `make check` is not listed among its targets.
- Make one bounded reproduction attempt using an isolated foreground node invocation and a short syscall/CPU capture. The current evidence cannot itself reproduce a failure; if the controlled run only shows timed waits, report that rather than claiming reproduction.
- No relevant local polling or IO wrapper is apparent in the inspected entrypoint; the server delegates to `Munin::Node::Server`/`Net::Server`. Follow existing integration rather than introducing a generic polling loop.

## Patch Pass

Subject: Diagnose munin-node CPU signal before changing source

## Commit Message
The captured signal does not establish a Munin busy loop. The trace shows `pselect6` timing out after roughly 1.8–2 seconds, while `/proc` reports the process sleeping in `poll_schedule_timeout`. Those observations fit a process waiting for activity; the kernel profile alone does not locate a Munin code defect. Leave the source unchanged pending stronger evidence.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
Fixer recorded 100% of sampled CPU passing through the kernel symbol `perf_ctx_enable`, three `pselect6` calls, and a sleeping `munin-node` process. The completed calls wait for about 1.8–2 seconds and time out, so the reported “busy poll” is not confirmed. The node delegates its listener loop to `Net::Server::Fork` (`lib/Munin/Node/Server.pm:4`); Munin’s separate child-output reader uses Perl `select` (`lib/Munin/Node/OS.pm:98-124`), but the evidence does not connect that reader—or plugin output—to this process signal. I made no code change because neither path is shown to be faulty. The expected effect is to avoid an unsupported upstream fix and keep investigation focused on collecting a trace that identifies repeated wakeups or application work.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` — failed: `Build.PL` cannot load `Module::Build`.
- `make check` — failed: the Makefile has no `check` target.
- `perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node` — passed.
- Bounded trace attempt: `timeout 6s strace -f -tt -e trace=pselect6,select,poll,ppoll perl -T -Ilib script/munin-node --foreground --config /dev/null` — blocked because ptrace is not permitted. A separate isolated run was not executed because its required cleanup command was rejected; no independent reproduction was obtained.
- No relevant local listener-loop wrapper was found: `Net::Server::Fork` owns that loop; `Munin::Node::OS::_read_from_child` uses Perl `select`. The workspace is on `master`; `HACKING.pod` explicitly directs bug-fix patches to `stable-2.0` if a patch is later justified.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: ok

The workspace has no source diff. `patch-output.txt` is a no-patch diagnosis with `inferred` confidence, consistent with the timed-out `pselect6` calls and sleeping `/proc` state in the evidence. It avoids claiming a reproduced failure, reports the build and trace blockers, and notes Munin’s local child-output reader and the maintainer’s stable-branch guidance.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Codex suba

[truncated 15284 bytes]

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem
Fixer observed a likely busy-poll signal for `/usr/bin/perl -wT /usr/sbin/munin-node --foreground`, but the samples do not identify a Munin code path: only three `pselect6` samples were captured, and 100% of sampled CPU was attributed to kernel `perf_ctx_enable`. The Munin entry point delegates to `Munin::Node::Server->run`; its connection loop reads requests, but the inspected plain-transport path uses blocking line input. The accept loop is in external `Net::Server::Fork`. The evidence does not establish a Munin bug.

## Evidence Confidence
**inferred** — source inspection finds no demonstrated busy loop in Munin, and the captured samples are insufficient to distinguish application behavior from kernel/perf or external-library behavior. This is a no-patch diagnosis plan; collect a language-level stack or trace tied to the entry point before considering a source change.

## Proposed Subject
No source patch proposed pending stronger evidence.

## Patch Plan
- Do not change Munin source based on these samples.
- If follow-up evidence identifies a script-level loop, inspect that path and its callers before proposing a bounded fix; investigate Perl runtime behavior only afterward.
- Follow `CONTRIBUTING.md` and `HACKING.pod`; no relevant local IO wrapper was found for the server loop. Local code uses blocking `<STDIN>` for plain requests and `IO::Select` in separate paths.
- The local branch is `master`, with no remote/default-branch metadata or prior event-loop Fixer patch to improve or replace. Any future upstream patch should target upstream `master`/`main`, rather than treating the Debian source tree as the merge-request base.
- Keep the maintainer-facing explanation tied to the newly collected failure evidence; avoid speculative fixes or awkward control flow.

## Risks
- The capture is very limited and its kernel perf attribution does not show what Munin was doing at the time.
- `Net::Server::Fork` and TLS read behavior are external to this source tree; the inspected Munin code alone cannot rule them out.
- No reproducer is supplied, so a code change could alter daemon behavior without addressing the reported signal.

## Validation
- Before any focused compile, try project-level `make` from the workspace root, then `make check` if available. The Makefile defines `build`/`test` but no `check` target; `./Build` is currently absent, so `make` may need to generate it via `Build.PL`.
- Run one bounded independent attempt to tie the signal to the entry point: capture a language-level Perl stack or trace while the affected process is active, recording PID/state/CPU and confirming whether time is spent in Munin code or `Net::Server::Fork`. Do not claim reproduction unless this captures the failure.
- Only if evidence then identifies a Munin source path, run the narrowest relevant Perl syntax/test check after the project-level attempt.

## Patch Pass

Subject: Diagnose Munin node polling signal without speculative patch

## Commit Message
No source change. Fixer’s capture shows a likely busy-poll signal for the Perl process running `munin-node`, but it does not locate a loop in Munin code. Avoiding a speculative change leaves the upstream code untouched until a trace ties the signal to an application path.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
The collected signal is three `pselect6` samples for `/usr/bin/perl -wT /usr/sbin/munin-node --foreground`, with the hot-path attribution entirely in kernel `perf_ctx_enable`; the `/proc` wait channel is `poll_schedule_timeout.constprop.0`. This evidence suggests repeated polling, but does not establish that Munin caused it. The entry script delegates to `Munin::Node::Server->run`; the inspected plain-transport request loop uses blocking input, while the server accept loop is in external `Net::Server::Fork`. No source change is warranted without a trace connecting the signal to a Munin code path. The expected effect of this no-patch diagnosis is to avoid an unsupported upstream fix and identify the next evidence needed: a language-level stack or trace collected while the affected process is active.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` from the workspace root failed because `Module::Build` is missing: `Can't locate Module/Build.pm`; `Build.PL` aborted and `make` exited with error 2.
- `make check` failed because there is no `check` target.
- `perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node` passed (`syntax OK`). A first attempt without `-T` failed because the script’s shebang requires taint mode.
- Bounded reproduction attempt: checked the process list for the affected `munin-node` command; no matching process was available. `strace` is installed, but without the affected process or workload, tracing a different invocation would not independently reproduce the reported signal. No files were changed.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: fix-needed

## Findings
- The no-patch diagnosis is appropriately cautious for the indirect evidence, and `Git Add Paths: None` matches the empty source diff.
- Correct the upstream branch guidance: `HACKING.pod` says bug-fix patches should be based on `stable-2.0` and are merged into `master`. The response instead recommends `master`/`main` for a future patch, which conflicts with the project’s contribution docs.

## Refinement Pass 1

Subject: Diagnose Munin node polling signal without speculative patch

## Commit Message
No source change. The available samples suggest polling but do not identify a Munin code path, so this response records a diagnosis rather than proposing an unsupported fix.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
The capture contains three `pselect6` samples for `/usr/bin/perl -wT /usr/sbin/munin-node --foreground`, with hot-path attribution to kernel `perf_ctx_enable`. This suggests repeated polling but does not establish a Munin cause. The inspected request path uses blocking input, and the server accept loop is handled by external `Net::Server::Fork`. No source change is warranted without a trace connecting the signal to Munin code.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` failed because `Module::Build` is unavailable; `Build.PL` aborted.
- `make check` failed because no `check` target exists.
- `perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node` passed.
- The process-list check found no matching `munin-node` process, so independent reproduction was unavailable. `strace` is installed, but tracing another invocation would not reproduce the collected signal.
- Addressed the review’s branch-guidance finding: `HACKING.pod` directs bug-fix patches to `stable-2.0`, with fixes merged to `master`. No source patch is proposed; if follow-up evidence supports one, use the contribution-doc branch convention.

## Review Pass 2

RESULT: ok

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Codex suba

[truncated 15284 bytes]

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem
Fixer observed a likely busy-poll signal for `/usr/bin/perl -wT /usr/sbin/munin-node --foreground`, but the samples do not identify a Munin code path: only three `pselect6` samples were captured, and 100% of sampled CPU was attributed to kernel `perf_ctx_enable`. The Munin entry point delegates to `Munin::Node::Server->run`; its connection loop reads requests, but the inspected plain-transport path uses blocking line input. The accept loop is in external `Net::Server::Fork`. The evidence does not establish a Munin bug.

## Evidence Confidence
**inferred** — source inspection finds no demonstrated busy loop in Munin, and the captured samples are insufficient to distinguish application behavior from kernel/perf or external-library behavior. This is a no-patch diagnosis plan; collect a language-level stack or trace tied to the entry point before considering a source change.

## Proposed Subject
No source patch proposed pending stronger evidence.

## Patch Plan
- Do not change Munin source based on these samples.
- If follow-up evidence identifies a script-level loop, inspect that path and its callers before proposing a bounded fix; investigate Perl runtime behavior only afterward.
- Follow `CONTRIBUTING.md` and `HACKING.pod`; no relevant local IO wrapper was found for the server loop. Local code uses blocking `<STDIN>` for plain requests and `IO::Select` in separate paths.
- The local branch is `master`, with no remote/default-branch metadata or prior event-loop Fixer patch to improve or replace. Any future upstream patch should target upstream `master`/`main`, rather than treating the Debian source tree as the merge-request base.
- Keep the maintainer-facing explanation tied to the newly collected failure evidence; avoid speculative fixes or awkward control flow.

## Risks
- The capture is very limited and its kernel perf attribution does not show what Munin was doing at the time.
- `Net::Server::Fork` and TLS read behavior are external to this source tree; the inspected Munin code alone cannot rule them out.
- No reproducer is supplied, so a code change could alter daemon behavior without addressing the reported signal.

## Validation
- Before any focused compile, try project-level `make` from the workspace root, then `make check` if available. The Makefile defines `build`/`test` but no `check` target; `./Build` is currently absent, so `make` may need to generate it via `Build.PL`.
- Run one bounded independent attempt to tie the signal to the entry point: capture a language-level Perl stack or trace while the affected process is active, recording PID/state/CPU and confirming whether time is spent in Munin code or `Net::Server::Fork`. Do not claim reproduction unless this captures the failure.
- Only if evidence then identifies a Munin source path, run the narrowest relevant Perl syntax/test check after the project-level attempt.

## Patch Pass

Subject: Diagnose Munin node polling signal without speculative patch

## Commit Message
No source change. Fixer’s capture shows a likely busy-poll signal for the Perl process running `munin-node`, but it does not locate a loop in Munin code. Avoiding a speculative change leaves the upstream code untouched until a trace ties the signal to an application path.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
The collected signal is three `pselect6` samples for `/usr/bin/perl -wT /usr/sbin/munin-node --foreground`, with the hot-path attribution entirely in kernel `perf_ctx_enable`; the `/proc` wait channel is `poll_schedule_timeout.constprop.0`. This evidence suggests repeated polling, but does not establish that Munin caused it. The entry script delegates to `Munin::Node::Server->run`; the inspected plain-transport request loop uses blocking input, while the server accept loop is in external `Net::Server::Fork`. No source change is warranted without a trace connecting the signal to a Munin code path. The expected effect of this no-patch diagnosis is to avoid an unsupported upstream fix and identify the next evidence needed: a language-level stack or trace collected while the affected process is active.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` from the workspace root failed because `Module::Build` is missing: `Can't locate Module/Build.pm`; `Build.PL` aborted and `make` exited with error 2.
- `make check` failed because there is no `check` target.
- `perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node` passed (`syntax OK`). A first attempt without `-T` failed because the script’s shebang requires taint mode.
- Bounded reproduction attempt: checked the process list for the affected `munin-node` command; no matching process was available. `strace` is installed, but without the affected process or workload, tracing a different invocation would not independently reproduce the reported signal. No files were changed.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: fix-needed

## Findings
- The no-patch diagnosis is appropriately cautious for the indirect evidence, and `Git Add Paths: None` matches the empty source diff.
- Correct the upstream branch guidance: `HACKING.pod` says bug-fix patches should be based on `stable-2.0` and are merged into `master`. The response instead recommends `master`/`main` for a future patch, which conflicts with the project’s contribution docs.

## Refinement Pass 1

Subject: Diagnose Munin node polling signal without speculative patch

## Commit Message
No source change. The available samples suggest polling but do not identify a Munin code path, so this response records a diagnosis rather than proposing an unsupported fix.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
The capture contains three `pselect6` samples for `/usr/bin/perl -wT /usr/sbin/munin-node --foreground`, with hot-path attribution to kernel `perf_ctx_enable`. This suggests repeated polling but does not establish a Munin cause. The inspected request path uses blocking input, and the server accept loop is handled by external `Net::Server::Fork`. No source change is warranted without a trace connecting the signal to Munin code.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` failed because `Module::Build` is unavailable; `Build.PL` aborted.
- `make check` failed because no `check` target exists.
- `perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node` passed.
- The process-list check found no matching `munin-node` process, so independent reproduction was unavailable. `strace` is installed, but tracing another invocation would not reproduce the collected signal.
- Addressed the review’s branch-guidance finding: `HACKING.pod` directs bug-fix patches to `stable-2.0`, with fixes merged to `master`. No source patch is proposed; if follow-up evidence supports one, use the contribution-doc branch convention.

## Review Pass 2

RESULT: ok

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem
Fixer flagged `munin-node` as a likely busy-poll process, but the evidence does not connect the sampled kernel activity to a tight loop in Munin code.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

The evidence is profiler-only: the process is sleeping, its wait channel is `poll_schedule_timeout`, and the captured `pselect6` calls block for roughly 1.8–2 seconds. The Perl-level stack is missing. Source inspection found the `script/munin-node` entrypoint delegates to `Munin::Node::Server`; its request loop reads from the session, and the `select` in `Munin::Node::OS` waits without a timeout. Neither establishes a busy loop.

## Proposed Subject
No source patch: diagnose the busy-poll classification as unconfirmed.

## Patch Plan
- Do not change Munin source or propose a runtime patch: the evidence does not identify a faulty line or behavior.
- Before reconsidering a patch, collect a Perl-level stack or trace and correlate it with a specific application path.
- `CONTRIBUTING.md` directs contributors to `HACKING.pod`. That guide names `master` as the development branch and `stable-2.0` for bug-fix patches; use `master` for upstream integration unless this is specifically a stable backport.
- No relevant Munin-specific select/poll wrapper was found. If later investigation identifies a fix, follow the existing helpers and conventions, including `Munin::Common::Timeout` where applicable and the surrounding file’s style. No prior Fixer patch was found to replace; avoid adding control flow without evidence.

## Risks
A patch based on this profile could alter normal blocking behavior without addressing the reported CPU signal. The evidence does not prove a Munin defect or a Perl runtime defect.

## Validation
- If implementation proceeds later, first try `make` from the workspace root, then `make test`; this checkout has no `make check` target. If those fail due to missing dependencies or generated files, record the exact command and failure, then use a reproducible focused test.
- For this diagnosis, the bounded independent reproduction attempt is to correlate a Perl-level stack/trace with the sampled process and its `pselect6` waits. The evidence bundle lacks the original live process/configuration and an application-level stack, so it cannot establish a reproduction from this workspace alone.

## Patch Pass



## Workflow Note

{"type":"item.completed","item":{"id":"item_11","type":"reasoning","text":"**Preparing commit message**"}}
{"type":"error","message":"Reconnecting... 1/5 (stream disconnected before completion: Upstream websocket closed before response.completed: Upstream websocket receive failed)"}
{"type":"error","message":"Reconnecting... 2/5 (unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: 228d5fb1-2bf2-4472-ad8c-8d796654668a)"}
{"type":"error","message":"Reconnecting... 3/5 (unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: 95cbd2ee-aa6c-4ea9-ad6d-8d9992d71c0b)"}
{"type":"error","message":"Reconnecting... 4/5 (unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: 103a2fe1-c155-4475-aa54-85ee8fefe641)"}
{"type":"error","message":"Reconnecting... 5/5 (unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: 4db19632-6e81-4d90-9d5f-dd78e0953898)"}
{"type":"error","message":"unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: c15342a0-5c71-4915-b75d-656eb73f6679"}
{"type":"turn.failed","error":{"message":"unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: c15342a0-5c71-4915-b75d-656eb73f6679"}}

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Codex suba

[truncated 27431 bytes]

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem
Fixer labels `munin-node` as a busy-poll runaway, but the evidence does not establish a Munin defect: its three `pselect6` calls timed out after about 1.8 and 2 seconds, and the sampled hot symbol is kernel-side `perf_ctx_enable`. The entrypoint delegates to `Net::Server::Fork`; no Munin-owned polling loop is implicated.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred — the capture is observational, but it does not tie CPU use to a Munin code path or independently reproduce the reported failure. Treat this as a diagnosis, not a confirmed bug fix.

## Proposed Subject
No source patch proposed. First obtain a fresh capture tied to the running node and its event-loop context.

## Patch Plan
Do not change Munin or Perl based on this profile alone. The script entrypoint, `script/munin-node`, delegates to `Munin::Node::Server->run()`; `lib/Munin/Node/Server.pm` inherits its loop from external `Net::Server::Fork`. The available `Munin::Common::Timeout` helper handles request timeouts, not this accept loop. No relevant local polling helper was found. No prior Fixer source patch is present to improve or replace. If evidence later supports a bug fix, `HACKING.pod` directs bug-fix patches to `stable-2.0`.

## Risks
A speculative patch could change daemon behavior without addressing the kernel-side samples. Avoid attributing the profile to the Perl runtime absent evidence it mishandles this workload; no awkward control flow or `goto` is warranted.

## Validation
From the workspace root, try `make`, then `make test`; the Makefile has no `check` target. The bundle already contains a five-second `strace` capture, but there is no safe, available live target here for an independent reproduction. Request a fresh bounded capture with process identity and event-loop context before reconsidering a patch.

## Patch Pass

Subject: Diagnose munin-node profile as inconclusive

## Commit Message
No source change. The capture shows `munin-node` sleeping in timed `pselect6` waits, not an identified Munin busy loop. `HACKING.pod` directs bug-fix patches to `stable-2.0`; no patch was prepared.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
The collected signal is three `pselect6` calls timing out after roughly 1.8–2 seconds, a sleeping process, and samples in kernel-side `perf_ctx_enable`. That does not establish the reported busy-poll behavior or identify a Munin code defect. `script/munin-node` delegates its server loop to `Net::Server::Fork`; no Munin-owned accept/poll loop is implicated. `Munin::Common::Timeout` covers request timeouts, not that external loop, and no relevant local accept-loop helper was found. I made no source change because a speculative patch would not address a demonstrated cause. The expected effect is to avoid an unsupported upstream fix and request evidence that identifies the responsible code path.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` and `make test` both stop at `Build.PL:80`: `Can't locate Module/Build.pm`. The Makefile has no `check` target.
- Focused syntax checks passed: `perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node` and `perl -Ilib -c lib/Munin/Node/Server.pm`.
- Bounded reproduction attempt, `timeout 5 strace -tt -T -p 3947104 -e trace=pselect6`, was blocked by `ptrace(PTRACE_SEIZE): Operation not permitted`; `ps` also found no process with that PID here. I could not independently reproduce the signal.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: fix-needed

## Findings
- `patch-output.txt` says all three `pselect6` calls timed out, but the third strace line is truncated before its result. Say that the first two completed calls timed out and the third is incomplete. No source changes are present; the cautious no-patch diagnosis and validation report otherwise match the available evidence.

## Refinement Pass 1

Subject: Qualify the munin-node trace diagnosis

## Commit Message
No source change. This refinement corrects the trace summary: only the first two `pselect6` calls have recorded timeout results; the third line is truncated.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
The evidence records a sleeping `munin-node`, two completed `pselect6` calls timing out after about 1.8 and 2 seconds, and a third call whose result is not captured. Samples are in kernel-side `perf_ctx_enable`. This does not identify a Munin code defect: `script/munin-node` delegates its server loop to `Net::Server::Fork`, and no Munin-owned accept/poll loop is implicated. No source change is warranted from this indirect evidence. The expected effect of correcting the summary is to avoid overstating what the trace proves.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` and `make test` were attempted from the workspace root; both stop at `Build.PL:80` because `Module/Build.pm` is unavailable. The Makefile has no `check` target.
- Focused syntax checks passed: `perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node` and `perl -Ilib -c lib/Munin/Node/Server.pm`.
- The bounded reproduction attempt, `timeout 5 strace -tt -T -p 3947104 -e trace=pselect6`, was blocked by `ptrace(PTRACE_SEIZE): Operation not permitted`; `ps` found no process with that PID. The signal was not independently reproduced.

## Review Pass 2

RESULT: fix-needed

## Findings
- The latest response correctly limits the trace claim to two completed timeouts and one truncated call. For completeness, explicitly state that no Munin-local helper for the external `Net::Server::Fork` accept loop was found, and name the `HACKING.pod` convention: bug-fix patches target `stable-2.0`. Since this is a no-patch diagnosis, clarify that no branch was selected. The earlier plan contains these details, but the latest response omits them.

## Refinement Pass 2

Subject: Clarify the munin-node profile diagnosis

## Commit Message
No source change: the trace is inconclusive, so a speculative Munin fix is not warranted. No branch was selected.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
The evidence shows a sleeping `munin-node`, two completed `pselect6` calls timing out after about 1.8 and 2 seconds, a third call with no captured result, and samples in kernel-side `perf_ctx_enable`. This does not identify a Munin code defect. `script/munin-node` delegates server handling to external `Net::Server::Fork`; no Munin-local helper for that accept loop was found. `Munin::Common::Timeout` covers request timeouts, not the accept loop. No source change was made; the expected effect is to avoid overstating what the trace proves.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` and `make test` were attempted from the workspace root; both stop at `Build.PL:80` because `Module/Build.pm` is unavailable. The Makefile has no `check` target.
- Focused syntax checks passed: `perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node` and `perl -Ilib -c lib/Munin/Node/Server.pm`.
- The bounded attempt `timeout 5 strace -tt -T -p 3947104 -e trace=pselect6` was blocked by `ptrace(PTRACE_SEIZE): Operation not permitted`; `ps` found no process with that PID. The signal was not independently reproduced.
- `HACKING.pod` directs bug-fix patches to `stable-2.0`; because this diagnosis proposes no patch, no branch base was selected.

## Review Pass 3

RESULT: ok

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Codex suba

[truncated 27431 bytes]

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem
Fixer labels `munin-node` as a busy-poll runaway, but the evidence does not establish a Munin defect: its three `pselect6` calls timed out after about 1.8 and 2 seconds, and the sampled hot symbol is kernel-side `perf_ctx_enable`. The entrypoint delegates to `Net::Server::Fork`; no Munin-owned polling loop is implicated.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred — the capture is observational, but it does not tie CPU use to a Munin code path or independently reproduce the reported failure. Treat this as a diagnosis, not a confirmed bug fix.

## Proposed Subject
No source patch proposed. First obtain a fresh capture tied to the running node and its event-loop context.

## Patch Plan
Do not change Munin or Perl based on this profile alone. The script entrypoint, `script/munin-node`, delegates to `Munin::Node::Server->run()`; `lib/Munin/Node/Server.pm` inherits its loop from external `Net::Server::Fork`. The available `Munin::Common::Timeout` helper handles request timeouts, not this accept loop. No relevant local polling helper was found. No prior Fixer source patch is present to improve or replace. If evidence later supports a bug fix, `HACKING.pod` directs bug-fix patches to `stable-2.0`.

## Risks
A speculative patch could change daemon behavior without addressing the kernel-side samples. Avoid attributing the profile to the Perl runtime absent evidence it mishandles this workload; no awkward control flow or `goto` is warranted.

## Validation
From the workspace root, try `make`, then `make test`; the Makefile has no `check` target. The bundle already contains a five-second `strace` capture, but there is no safe, available live target here for an independent reproduction. Request a fresh bounded capture with process identity and event-loop context before reconsidering a patch.

## Patch Pass

Subject: Diagnose munin-node profile as inconclusive

## Commit Message
No source change. The capture shows `munin-node` sleeping in timed `pselect6` waits, not an identified Munin busy loop. `HACKING.pod` directs bug-fix patches to `stable-2.0`; no patch was prepared.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
The collected signal is three `pselect6` calls timing out after roughly 1.8–2 seconds, a sleeping process, and samples in kernel-side `perf_ctx_enable`. That does not establish the reported busy-poll behavior or identify a Munin code defect. `script/munin-node` delegates its server loop to `Net::Server::Fork`; no Munin-owned accept/poll loop is implicated. `Munin::Common::Timeout` covers request timeouts, not that external loop, and no relevant local accept-loop helper was found. I made no source change because a speculative patch would not address a demonstrated cause. The expected effect is to avoid an unsupported upstream fix and request evidence that identifies the responsible code path.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` and `make test` both stop at `Build.PL:80`: `Can't locate Module/Build.pm`. The Makefile has no `check` target.
- Focused syntax checks passed: `perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node` and `perl -Ilib -c lib/Munin/Node/Server.pm`.
- Bounded reproduction attempt, `timeout 5 strace -tt -T -p 3947104 -e trace=pselect6`, was blocked by `ptrace(PTRACE_SEIZE): Operation not permitted`; `ps` also found no process with that PID here. I could not independently reproduce the signal.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: fix-needed

## Findings
- `patch-output.txt` says all three `pselect6` calls timed out, but the third strace line is truncated before its result. Say that the first two completed calls timed out and the third is incomplete. No source changes are present; the cautious no-patch diagnosis and validation report otherwise match the available evidence.

## Refinement Pass 1

Subject: Qualify the munin-node trace diagnosis

## Commit Message
No source change. This refinement corrects the trace summary: only the first two `pselect6` calls have recorded timeout results; the third line is truncated.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
The evidence records a sleeping `munin-node`, two completed `pselect6` calls timing out after about 1.8 and 2 seconds, and a third call whose result is not captured. Samples are in kernel-side `perf_ctx_enable`. This does not identify a Munin code defect: `script/munin-node` delegates its server loop to `Net::Server::Fork`, and no Munin-owned accept/poll loop is implicated. No source change is warranted from this indirect evidence. The expected effect of correcting the summary is to avoid overstating what the trace proves.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` and `make test` were attempted from the workspace root; both stop at `Build.PL:80` because `Module/Build.pm` is unavailable. The Makefile has no `check` target.
- Focused syntax checks passed: `perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node` and `perl -Ilib -c lib/Munin/Node/Server.pm`.
- The bounded reproduction attempt, `timeout 5 strace -tt -T -p 3947104 -e trace=pselect6`, was blocked by `ptrace(PTRACE_SEIZE): Operation not permitted`; `ps` found no process with that PID. The signal was not independently reproduced.

## Review Pass 2

RESULT: fix-needed

## Findings
- The latest response correctly limits the trace claim to two completed timeouts and one truncated call. For completeness, explicitly state that no Munin-local helper for the external `Net::Server::Fork` accept loop was found, and name the `HACKING.pod` convention: bug-fix patches target `stable-2.0`. Since this is a no-patch diagnosis, clarify that no branch was selected. The earlier plan contains these details, but the latest response omits them.

## Refinement Pass 2

Subject: Clarify the munin-node profile diagnosis

## Commit Message
No source change: the trace is inconclusive, so a speculative Munin fix is not warranted. No branch was selected.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
The evidence shows a sleeping `munin-node`, two completed `pselect6` calls timing out after about 1.8 and 2 seconds, a third call with no captured result, and samples in kernel-side `perf_ctx_enable`. This does not identify a Munin code defect. `script/munin-node` delegates server handling to external `Net::Server::Fork`; no Munin-local helper for that accept loop was found. `Munin::Common::Timeout` covers request timeouts, not the accept loop. No source change was made; the expected effect is to avoid overstating what the trace proves.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` and `make test` were attempted from the workspace root; both stop at `Build.PL:80` because `Module/Build.pm` is unavailable. The Makefile has no `check` target.
- Focused syntax checks passed: `perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node` and `perl -Ilib -c lib/Munin/Node/Server.pm`.
- The bounded attempt `timeout 5 strace -tt -T -p 3947104 -e trace=pselect6` was blocked by `ptrace(PTRACE_SEIZE): Operation not permitted`; `ps` found no process with that PID. The signal was not independently reproduced.
- `HACKING.pod` directs bug-fix patches to `stable-2.0`; because this diagnosis proposes no patch, no branch base was selected.

## Review Pass 3

RESULT: ok

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

Response

## Plan Pass

Additional scout findings strengthen the no-patch diagnosis: the process was sleeping and used about 0.9% CPU, while `pselect6` blocked for roughly 1.8–2 seconds. The capture does not identify whether that syscall came from `Net::Server::Fork`’s accept loop or Munin’s plugin-output handling in `lib/Munin/Node/OS.pm`; neither is tied to the reported signal by a Perl-level stack. Both paths should be distinguished in the bounded reproduction attempt before considering a patch.

## Patch Pass



## Workflow Note

{"type":"item.completed","item":{"id":"item_24","type":"agent_message","text":"`OS.pm`’s select has no timeout, unlike the captured two-second wait; I’m verifying the server dependency’s loop and attempting the bounded smoke trace."}}
{"type":"error","message":"Reconnecting... 1/5 (stream disconnected before completion: Upstream websocket closed before response.completed: Upstream websocket receive failed)"}
{"type":"error","message":"Reconnecting... 2/5 (unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: 37a949c6-5a83-44b8-ae68-22ca9d0f5687)"}
{"type":"error","message":"Reconnecting... 3/5 (unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: 31da60ae-efde-4bcc-9f97-7803a540f97e)"}
{"type":"error","message":"Reconnecting... 4/5 (unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: 83901e3c-ee9b-4bf6-a654-d5ed4ad07a40)"}
{"type":"error","message":"Reconnecting... 5/5 (unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: 48dd516a-d58e-4706-8ff7-44211354ad36)"}
{"type":"error","message":"unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: 52e5946d-03fb-4f0b-9cbc-3b395c1d14d6"}
{"type":"turn.failed","error":{"message":"unexpected status 503 Service Unavailable: opportunistic burn window closed: no expendable account has emergency foreground reserve, url: http://127.0.0.1:2455/backend-api/codex/responses, request id: 52e5946d-03fb-4f0b-9cbc-3b395c1d14d6"}}

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Codex suba

[truncated 3140 bytes]

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem
Munin-node was flagged for a likely busy-poll loop, but the available trace shows repeated `pselect6` calls timing out after about 1.8–2 seconds. It does not establish a tight loop or identify a Munin source call site.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

The process was sleeping in the kernel poll wait, and the evidence lacks a Perl-level stack or reproducible workload. The independent source review found the entrypoint delegates to `Net::Server::Fork`; Munin’s own `select` in plugin output handling is not tied to this trace. The signal is insufficient to justify a source patch.

## Proposed Subject
No patch proposed; diagnose the reported CPU signal as unconfirmed.

## Patch Plan
- Make no source changes unless further evidence connects the observed wait to a Munin call site.
- If the investigation continues, start at `script/munin-node` and its `Munin::Node::Server` request handling—not the Perl runtime absent evidence of a runtime defect.
- Follow `HACKING.pod`: Perl strictness/warnings and `Munin::Common::Timeout` for bounded operations. No Munin-specific poll/select wrapper was found.
- No prior Fixer patch needs replacing. For a later upstream bug-fix patch, `HACKING.pod` explicitly says to target `stable-2.0`; use that exception to the usual `master` base guidance, and keep Debian source provenance separate from the upstream patch.

## Risks
A speculative change to daemon polling could alter normal idle behavior without addressing the measured signal. The evidence may reflect ordinary blocking waits, not runaway CPU. Avoid introducing control-flow workarounds such as `goto`; no patch is justified.

## Validation
- From the workspace root, try `make` first. The project documents `make test` and `./Build test`; its `Makefile` has no `check` target, so report `make check` as unavailable rather than substituting it silently.
- For one bounded independent reproduction attempt, if the original process is still available, capture `ps` state and up to 10 seconds of `strace -tt -T -e pselect6 -p PID` under `timeout`. Treat repeated timed waits as non-reproduction; do not infer a busy loop from them.
- No focused compile or smoke test is planned without a source change or a reproducible failure.

## Patch Pass

Subject: Diagnose Munin-node poll signal as inconclusive

## Commit Message
No source change. The available evidence does not connect the reported poll activity to a Munin code defect, so a source patch would be speculative.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
Fixer’s trace labels Munin-node as a likely busy poller, but the process was sleeping in `poll_schedule_timeout` and its `pselect6` calls waited roughly 1.8–2 seconds before timing out. The trace does not identify a Munin call site: `script/munin-node` delegates to `Net::Server::Fork`, while Munin’s own `select` is used to collect plugin output and is not linked to this process. I made no source change because the evidence does not establish a code-level cause. The likely explanation is that normal timed waits were classified as a busy-poll signal; confirming that requires a trace tied to the live process.

The project has no Munin-specific poll/select wrapper. `Munin::Common::Timeout` is used for bounded operations, but does not identify or explain the inherited server wait. No prior Fixer patch needs replacing. No patch means no merge-request base is selected; `HACKING.pod` says bug-fix patches target `stable-2.0`.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` failed at `Build.PL` because `Module::Build` is missing: `Can't locate Module/Build.pm in @INC`.
- `make check` is unavailable: `make: *** No rule to make target 'check'.`
- Narrow syntax checks passed: `perl -Ilib -c lib/Munin/Node/Server.pm` and `perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node`.
- The captured process PID was unavailable in `/proc`. The bounded attach attempt, `timeout 10s strace -tt -T -e pselect6 -p 3947104`, failed with `ptrace ... Operation not permitted`, so the reported signal was not independently reproduced.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: ok

The workspace has no source diff. The report correctly keeps confidence at `inferred`, connects the timed `pselect6` waits and sleeping process state to a cautious diagnosis, and avoids proposing an unsupported fix. It also names the build blocker and failed reproduction attempt.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Codex suba

[truncated 3140 bytes]

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem
Munin-node was flagged for a likely busy-poll loop, but the available trace shows repeated `pselect6` calls timing out after about 1.8–2 seconds. It does not establish a tight loop or identify a Munin source call site.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

The process was sleeping in the kernel poll wait, and the evidence lacks a Perl-level stack or reproducible workload. The independent source review found the entrypoint delegates to `Net::Server::Fork`; Munin’s own `select` in plugin output handling is not tied to this trace. The signal is insufficient to justify a source patch.

## Proposed Subject
No patch proposed; diagnose the reported CPU signal as unconfirmed.

## Patch Plan
- Make no source changes unless further evidence connects the observed wait to a Munin call site.
- If the investigation continues, start at `script/munin-node` and its `Munin::Node::Server` request handling—not the Perl runtime absent evidence of a runtime defect.
- Follow `HACKING.pod`: Perl strictness/warnings and `Munin::Common::Timeout` for bounded operations. No Munin-specific poll/select wrapper was found.
- No prior Fixer patch needs replacing. For a later upstream bug-fix patch, `HACKING.pod` explicitly says to target `stable-2.0`; use that exception to the usual `master` base guidance, and keep Debian source provenance separate from the upstream patch.

## Risks
A speculative change to daemon polling could alter normal idle behavior without addressing the measured signal. The evidence may reflect ordinary blocking waits, not runaway CPU. Avoid introducing control-flow workarounds such as `goto`; no patch is justified.

## Validation
- From the workspace root, try `make` first. The project documents `make test` and `./Build test`; its `Makefile` has no `check` target, so report `make check` as unavailable rather than substituting it silently.
- For one bounded independent reproduction attempt, if the original process is still available, capture `ps` state and up to 10 seconds of `strace -tt -T -e pselect6 -p PID` under `timeout`. Treat repeated timed waits as non-reproduction; do not infer a busy loop from them.
- No focused compile or smoke test is planned without a source change or a reproducible failure.

## Patch Pass

Subject: Diagnose Munin-node poll signal as inconclusive

## Commit Message
No source change. The available evidence does not connect the reported poll activity to a Munin code defect, so a source patch would be speculative.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
Fixer’s trace labels Munin-node as a likely busy poller, but the process was sleeping in `poll_schedule_timeout` and its `pselect6` calls waited roughly 1.8–2 seconds before timing out. The trace does not identify a Munin call site: `script/munin-node` delegates to `Net::Server::Fork`, while Munin’s own `select` is used to collect plugin output and is not linked to this process. I made no source change because the evidence does not establish a code-level cause. The likely explanation is that normal timed waits were classified as a busy-poll signal; confirming that requires a trace tied to the live process.

The project has no Munin-specific poll/select wrapper. `Munin::Common::Timeout` is used for bounded operations, but does not identify or explain the inherited server wait. No prior Fixer patch needs replacing. No patch means no merge-request base is selected; `HACKING.pod` says bug-fix patches target `stable-2.0`.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` failed at `Build.PL` because `Module::Build` is missing: `Can't locate Module/Build.pm in @INC`.
- `make check` is unavailable: `make: *** No rule to make target 'check'.`
- Narrow syntax checks passed: `perl -Ilib -c lib/Munin/Node/Server.pm` and `perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node`.
- The captured process PID was unavailable in `/proc`. The bounded attach attempt, `timeout 10s strace -tt -T -e pselect6 -p 3947104`, failed with `ptrace ... Operation not permitted`, so the reported signal was not independently reproduced.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: ok

The workspace has no source diff. The report correctly keeps confidence at `inferred`, connects the timed `pselect6` waits and sleeping process state to a cautious diagnosis, and avoids proposing an unsupported fix. It also names the build blocker and failed reproduction attempt.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Codex suba

[truncated 3140 bytes]

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem
- The evidence flags `munin-node` as a likely busy-poll loop, but the captured `pselect6` calls time out after about 1.8 and 2 seconds, and the process is reported sleeping. That does not establish a Munin CPU loop.
- Source inspection points to the expected idle listener wait in the external `Net::Server::Fork` dependency: `accept()` calls `IO::Select->can_read(2)`. No Munin source patch is justified by this evidence; no prior Fixer patch is present to improve or replace.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Proposed Subject
- No patch. Report that the signal is consistent with normal idle listener polling, not a confirmed runaway loop.

## Patch Plan
- Do not edit Munin or Perl runtime code. The application entrypoint delegates to `Munin::Node::Server`, which subclasses `Net::Server::Fork`; its two-second wait accounts for the observed timed polling.
- No relevant Munin polling helper was found; the wait is in the dependency. Follow `CONTRIBUTING.md` and `HACKING.pod` if a later Munin change is supported by stronger evidence. Those docs say to base development work on `master`, which is the workspace branch.

## Risks
- A source change based only on profiler attribution could alter normal listener behavior without addressing the reported CPU signal.
- The evidence does not include a language-level stack or proof that the timed waits consume excessive CPU.

## Validation
- For a bounded independent check on a live affected process, collect `ps -p <pid> -o pid,stat,pcpu,etime,wchan,args` and a short `strace -tt -T -p <pid>` capture. The supplied historical trace alone cannot reproduce the issue or establish `reproduced` confidence.
- If validation proceeds, try project-level `make` from the workspace root first, then `make check` only if that target exists; otherwise use the project’s `make test` entrypoint. No focused compile is planned because there is no proposed code change.

## Patch Pass

Subject: Diagnose Munin node polling signal; make no source change

## Commit Message
No patch. The available evidence is consistent with Munin’s normal idle listener polling, not a confirmed CPU runaway. A source change would be speculative without a live reproduction or stronger process-level evidence.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
Fixer collected a profile attributing 100% of sampled CPU to the kernel’s `perf_ctx_enable` symbol, plus `pselect6` calls timing out after about 1.8 and 2 seconds while `/proc` reported the process sleeping. In the inspected code, `script/munin-node` starts `Munin::Node::Server`, which subclasses `Net::Server::Fork`; that dependency’s accept loop waits with `IO::Select->can_read(2)`. This is a plausible explanation for the timed polling, but it does not establish excessive CPU use. I made no source change; the expected effect is to avoid an unsupported patch while the signal remains unconfirmed.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` — blocked because `Module::Build` is missing (`Can't locate Module/Build.pm`).
- `make check` — unavailable; Make reports `No rule to make target 'check'`.
- `perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node` — passed (`syntax OK`). The initial `perl -Ilib -c script/munin-node` attempt failed because the taint-mode script requires `-T`.
- Independent process check: `ps -p 3947104 -o pid,stat,pcpu,etime,wchan,args` found no process with the captured PID, so the reported behavior could not be independently reproduced or traced live. No relevant Munin polling helper was found; the wait is in `Net::Server::Fork`. The workspace branch is `master`, consistent with the contribution guidance.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: ok

The workspace has no source diff, and the report appropriately gives an inferred, no-patch diagnosis. It connects the timed `pselect6` calls to the external `Net::Server::Fork` idle wait without claiming the CPU issue was reproduced. Validation includes the root build attempt, the unavailable `make check` target, and a focused syntax check.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Codex suba

[truncated 3140 bytes]

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem
- The evidence flags `munin-node` as a likely busy-poll loop, but the captured `pselect6` calls time out after about 1.8 and 2 seconds, and the process is reported sleeping. That does not establish a Munin CPU loop.
- Source inspection points to the expected idle listener wait in the external `Net::Server::Fork` dependency: `accept()` calls `IO::Select->can_read(2)`. No Munin source patch is justified by this evidence; no prior Fixer patch is present to improve or replace.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Proposed Subject
- No patch. Report that the signal is consistent with normal idle listener polling, not a confirmed runaway loop.

## Patch Plan
- Do not edit Munin or Perl runtime code. The application entrypoint delegates to `Munin::Node::Server`, which subclasses `Net::Server::Fork`; its two-second wait accounts for the observed timed polling.
- No relevant Munin polling helper was found; the wait is in the dependency. Follow `CONTRIBUTING.md` and `HACKING.pod` if a later Munin change is supported by stronger evidence. Those docs say to base development work on `master`, which is the workspace branch.

## Risks
- A source change based only on profiler attribution could alter normal listener behavior without addressing the reported CPU signal.
- The evidence does not include a language-level stack or proof that the timed waits consume excessive CPU.

## Validation
- For a bounded independent check on a live affected process, collect `ps -p <pid> -o pid,stat,pcpu,etime,wchan,args` and a short `strace -tt -T -p <pid>` capture. The supplied historical trace alone cannot reproduce the issue or establish `reproduced` confidence.
- If validation proceeds, try project-level `make` from the workspace root first, then `make check` only if that target exists; otherwise use the project’s `make test` entrypoint. No focused compile is planned because there is no proposed code change.

## Patch Pass

Subject: Diagnose Munin node polling signal; make no source change

## Commit Message
No patch. The available evidence is consistent with Munin’s normal idle listener polling, not a confirmed CPU runaway. A source change would be speculative without a live reproduction or stronger process-level evidence.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
Fixer collected a profile attributing 100% of sampled CPU to the kernel’s `perf_ctx_enable` symbol, plus `pselect6` calls timing out after about 1.8 and 2 seconds while `/proc` reported the process sleeping. In the inspected code, `script/munin-node` starts `Munin::Node::Server`, which subclasses `Net::Server::Fork`; that dependency’s accept loop waits with `IO::Select->can_read(2)`. This is a plausible explanation for the timed polling, but it does not establish excessive CPU use. I made no source change; the expected effect is to avoid an unsupported patch while the signal remains unconfirmed.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` — blocked because `Module::Build` is missing (`Can't locate Module/Build.pm`).
- `make check` — unavailable; Make reports `No rule to make target 'check'`.
- `perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node` — passed (`syntax OK`). The initial `perl -Ilib -c script/munin-node` attempt failed because the taint-mode script requires `-T`.
- Independent process check: `ps -p 3947104 -o pid,stat,pcpu,etime,wchan,args` found no process with the captured PID, so the reported behavior could not be independently reproduced or traced live. No relevant Munin polling helper was found; the wait is in `Net::Server::Fork`. The workspace branch is `master`, consistent with the contribution guidance.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: ok

The workspace has no source diff, and the report appropriately gives an inferred, no-patch diagnosis. It connects the timed `pselect6` calls to the external `Net::Server::Fork` idle wait without claiming the CPU issue was reproduced. Validation includes the root build attempt, the unavailable `make check` target, and a focused syntax check.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Codex suba

[truncated 3140 bytes]

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem
Investigate a reported “busy-poll” in `munin-node`. The captured calls are timed `pselect6` waits that return after roughly 1.8–2 seconds; they do not, by themselves, show a tight loop.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

The evidence does not connect the sampled kernel frames to a hot Munin code path. The entrypoint `script/munin-node` calls `Munin::Node::Server->run`; that server inherits its listener loop from `Net::Server::Fork`. Munin’s own `select` is in child-plugin output handling at `lib/Munin/Node/OS.pm`, not the captured listener path. No Perl-level stack or confirmed high-CPU reproduction is available. This is a no-patch diagnosis plan, not a source-patch proposal.

## Proposed Subject
No source patch proposed; verify whether the reported `munin-node` CPU issue is reproducible.

## Patch Plan
Inspect the script entrypoint and server path first; investigate Perl or `Net::Server` runtime behavior only if new evidence ties the symptom to it. No prior Fixer patch was found to improve or replace. No relevant local helper abstracts the listener event loop; `Munin::Common::Timeout::do_with_timeout` is used for bounded request handling, not as a listener-loop substitute. If a source fix later becomes justified, follow the existing Perl style (`strict`, `warnings`, `English`) and avoid an unnecessary `goto` in favor of bounded, clear control flow. `HACKING.pod` says bug-fix patches target `stable-2.0`; use that convention unless the contribution target is clarified.

## Risks
A speculative change could alter daemon polling behavior without addressing the kernel-side sample or the dependency’s event loop. The current trace is consistent with an idle timed wait, so presenting it as a confirmed Munin defect would overstate the evidence.

## Validation
From the workspace root, try `make` first, then `make check` if available; report exact failures if dependencies or generated files are missing. For an independent, bounded observation, if the process is still present, collect `ps -p <pid> -o pid,stat,pcpu,etime,wchan,args` and a short syscall trace; compare CPU usage with syscall wait durations. Do not claim reproduction unless that attempt captures the reported behavior. No relevant local listener-loop helper was found.

## Patch Pass

Subject: Report insufficient evidence for a munin-node busy-poll fix

## Commit Message
No source changes. The available trace does not establish a `munin-node` busy loop: it shows timed waits in the kernel, but no Perl stack frame identifying application code to fix.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
The collected signal is repeated `pselect6` calls that time out after about 1.8–2 seconds; `/proc` reports the process sleeping in `poll_schedule_timeout` with 0.9% CPU. The sampled kernel hotspot and native Perl frames do not identify a Munin source line. The entrypoint delegates to `Net::Server::Fork`, while Munin’s own `select` is in plugin-output handling; neither is tied to the captured listener trace. No code change is justified without a Perl-level stack or a reproducible workload connecting the signal to Munin logic.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` failed because `Module::Build` is missing (`Can't locate Module/Build.pm`).
- `make check` failed because the Makefile has no `check` target.
- `perl -Ilib -c script/munin-node` stopped because the script requires taint mode; `perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node` passed with `syntax OK`.
- Bounded reproduction attempt: `ps -p 3947104 -o pid,stat,pcpu,etime,wchan,args` found no process, so a current process/trace comparison was not possible.
- No source files were edited. The checkout is on `master`; `HACKING.pod` directs bug fixes to `stable-2.0`. No local helper abstracts the inherited listener loop; `Munin::Common::Timeout::do_with_timeout` applies to request handling, not that loop.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: ok

The response appropriately makes no source changes: the timed `pselect6` waits and sleeping process state do not identify a Munin code path to fix. It labels confidence `inferred`, reports the `make` blocker and missing `make check` target, and includes the bounded process check and taint-mode syntax check. The branch note follows `HACKING.pod`’s stable bug-fix guidance.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Codex suba

[truncated 3140 bytes]

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem
Investigate a reported “busy-poll” in `munin-node`. The captured calls are timed `pselect6` waits that return after roughly 1.8–2 seconds; they do not, by themselves, show a tight loop.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

The evidence does not connect the sampled kernel frames to a hot Munin code path. The entrypoint `script/munin-node` calls `Munin::Node::Server->run`; that server inherits its listener loop from `Net::Server::Fork`. Munin’s own `select` is in child-plugin output handling at `lib/Munin/Node/OS.pm`, not the captured listener path. No Perl-level stack or confirmed high-CPU reproduction is available. This is a no-patch diagnosis plan, not a source-patch proposal.

## Proposed Subject
No source patch proposed; verify whether the reported `munin-node` CPU issue is reproducible.

## Patch Plan
Inspect the script entrypoint and server path first; investigate Perl or `Net::Server` runtime behavior only if new evidence ties the symptom to it. No prior Fixer patch was found to improve or replace. No relevant local helper abstracts the listener event loop; `Munin::Common::Timeout::do_with_timeout` is used for bounded request handling, not as a listener-loop substitute. If a source fix later becomes justified, follow the existing Perl style (`strict`, `warnings`, `English`) and avoid an unnecessary `goto` in favor of bounded, clear control flow. `HACKING.pod` says bug-fix patches target `stable-2.0`; use that convention unless the contribution target is clarified.

## Risks
A speculative change could alter daemon polling behavior without addressing the kernel-side sample or the dependency’s event loop. The current trace is consistent with an idle timed wait, so presenting it as a confirmed Munin defect would overstate the evidence.

## Validation
From the workspace root, try `make` first, then `make check` if available; report exact failures if dependencies or generated files are missing. For an independent, bounded observation, if the process is still present, collect `ps -p <pid> -o pid,stat,pcpu,etime,wchan,args` and a short syscall trace; compare CPU usage with syscall wait durations. Do not claim reproduction unless that attempt captures the reported behavior. No relevant local listener-loop helper was found.

## Patch Pass

Subject: Report insufficient evidence for a munin-node busy-poll fix

## Commit Message
No source changes. The available trace does not establish a `munin-node` busy loop: it shows timed waits in the kernel, but no Perl stack frame identifying application code to fix.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
The collected signal is repeated `pselect6` calls that time out after about 1.8–2 seconds; `/proc` reports the process sleeping in `poll_schedule_timeout` with 0.9% CPU. The sampled kernel hotspot and native Perl frames do not identify a Munin source line. The entrypoint delegates to `Net::Server::Fork`, while Munin’s own `select` is in plugin-output handling; neither is tied to the captured listener trace. No code change is justified without a Perl-level stack or a reproducible workload connecting the signal to Munin logic.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` failed because `Module::Build` is missing (`Can't locate Module/Build.pm`).
- `make check` failed because the Makefile has no `check` target.
- `perl -Ilib -c script/munin-node` stopped because the script requires taint mode; `perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node` passed with `syntax OK`.
- Bounded reproduction attempt: `ps -p 3947104 -o pid,stat,pcpu,etime,wchan,args` found no process, so a current process/trace comparison was not possible.
- No source files were edited. The checkout is on `master`; `HACKING.pod` directs bug fixes to `stable-2.0`. No local helper abstracts the inherited listener loop; `Munin::Common::Timeout::do_with_timeout` applies to request handling, not that loop.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: ok

The response appropriately makes no source changes: the timed `pselect6` waits and sleeping process state do not identify a Munin code path to fix. It labels confidence `inferred`, reports the `make` blocker and missing `make check` target, and includes the bounded process check and taint-mode syntax check. The branch note follows `HACKING.pod`’s stable bug-fix guidance.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

Response

## Plan Pass



## Workflow Note

model: gpt-6-luna

{"type":"thread.started","thread_id":"01a0d3b3-c43c-7112-aa7b-efc8ac730052"}
{"type":"item.completed","item":{"id":"item_0","type":"error","message":"Model metadata for `gpt-6-luna` not found. Defaulting to fallback metadata; this can degrade performance and cause issues."}}
{"type":"turn.started"}
{"type":"error","message":"exceeded retry limit, last status: 429 Too Many Requests, request id: bc6c01f7-d601-4d45-b52e-8c70763bec48"}
{"type":"turn.failed","error":{"message":"exceeded retry limit, last status: 429 Too Many Requests, request id: bc6c01f7-d601-4d45-b52e-8c70763bec48"}}

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

Response

## Plan Pass



## Workflow Note

model: gpt-6-luna

{"type":"thread.started","thread_id":"01a0d35a-276d-7053-add9-8eb1da759b30"}
{"type":"item.completed","item":{"id":"item_0","type":"error","message":"Model metadata for `gpt-6-luna` not found. Defaulting to fallback metadata; this can degrade performance and cause issues."}}
{"type":"turn.started"}
{"type":"error","message":"exceeded retry limit, last status: 429 Too Many Requests, request id: f27a0562-ef2f-4a3b-a410-d26e8917e016"}
{"type":"turn.failed","error":{"message":"exceeded retry limit, last status: 429 Too Many Requests, request id: f27a0562-ef2f-4a3b-a410-d26e8917e016"}}

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

Response

## Plan Pass



## Workflow Note

model: gpt-6-luna

{"type":"thread.started","thread_id":"01a0d321-e664-7142-a0fd-e1ab3d7aee4a"}
{"type":"item.completed","item":{"id":"item_0","type":"error","message":"Model metadata for `gpt-6-luna` not found. Defaulting to fallback metadata; this can degrade performance and cause issues."}}
{"type":"turn.started"}
{"type":"error","message":"exceeded retry limit, last status: 429 Too Many Requests, request id: 955bcf1e-cf35-49c1-b726-55e748edca37"}
{"type":"turn.failed","error":{"message":"exceeded retry limit, last status: 429 Too Many Requests, request id: 955bcf1e-cf35-49c1-b726-55e748edca37"}}

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

Response

## Plan Pass



## Workflow Note

model: gpt-6-luna

{"type":"thread.started","thread_id":"01a0d2ea-bc90-73b2-89e7-bba9f7983265"}
{"type":"item.completed","item":{"id":"item_0","type":"error","message":"Model metadata for `gpt-6-luna` not found. Defaulting to fallback metadata; this can degrade performance and cause issues."}}
{"type":"turn.started"}
{"type":"error","message":"exceeded retry limit, last status: 429 Too Many Requests, request id: 5c266eb5-b8aa-4915-9c62-1f4f3c619b82"}
{"type":"turn.failed","error":{"message":"exceeded retry limit, last status: 429 Too Many Requests, request id: 5c266eb5-b8aa-4915-9c62-1f4f3c619b82"}}

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

Response

## Plan Pass



## Workflow Note

model: gpt-6-luna

{"type":"thread.started","thread_id":"01a0d297-552f-7b91-994c-f1957d9d348c"}
{"type":"item.completed","item":{"id":"item_0","type":"error","message":"Model metadata for `gpt-6-luna` not found. Defaulting to fallback metadata; this can degrade performance and cause issues."}}
{"type":"turn.started"}
{"type":"error","message":"exceeded retry limit, last status: 429 Too Many Requests, request id: a8dfa2fb-39d0-44cd-a2fb-62d37d59e81d"}
{"type":"turn.failed","error":{"message":"exceeded retry limit, last status: 429 Too Many Requests, request id: a8dfa2fb-39d0-44cd-a2fb-62d37d59e81d"}}

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

Response

## Plan Pass



## Workflow Note

model: gpt-6-luna

{"type":"thread.started","thread_id":"01a0d238-5a8f-7803-a2a3-4c65e5e190bd"}
{"type":"item.completed","item":{"id":"item_0","type":"error","message":"Model metadata for `gpt-6-luna` not found. Defaulting to fallback metadata; this can degrade performance and cause issues."}}
{"type":"turn.started"}
{"type":"error","message":"exceeded retry limit, last status: 429 Too Many Requests, request id: f9f5136a-5a51-4588-b1f8-f7c095e0cb1c"}
{"type":"turn.failed","error":{"message":"exceeded retry limit, last status: 429 Too Many Requests, request id: f9f5136a-5a51-4588-b1f8-f7c095e0cb1c"}}

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Codex suba

[truncated 3140 bytes]

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem
Fixer flagged `munin-node` as a likely busy poller, but the collected trace does not establish excessive CPU use or a Munin code defect. Its three `pselect6` calls wait roughly 1.8–2 seconds each before timing out.

## Evidence Confidence
**inferred** — The evidence suggests normal blocking while the node waits for input, not a demonstrated busy loop. It contains no Perl-level stack tying the poll to Munin code. This is a no-patch diagnosis plan; don’t propose a source change without stronger evidence.

## Proposed Subject
No source patch. Investigate whether the observed idle wait is expected or whether CPU use can be tied to a specific Munin code path.

## Patch Plan
- Inspect the script entrypoint first: `script/munin-node` initializes the daemon and calls `Munin::Node::Server->run`; the server inherits its event loop from `Net::Server::Fork` (`lib/Munin/Node/Server.pm`).
- Compare an idle process with one serving a request. The server reads via `<STDIN>` or the project TLS wrapper; plugin-child output has a separate `select` loop in `lib/Munin/Node/OS.pm`, active only while a plugin runs.
- Follow existing conventions if evidence later warrants a patch: `Net::Server::Fork`, `Munin::Common::TLSServer`, and `Munin::Common::Timeout`. No local helper for replacing the server event loop was found.
- No prior Fixer patch exists to improve or replace. Do not alter timeout or polling behavior speculatively, and avoid awkward control flow such as an unnecessary `goto`.
- `HACKING.pod` says bug fixes should target upstream `stable-2.0`; use this Debian source snapshot for investigation, not as the default merge base.

## Risks
Changing polling or timeout behavior could affect connection handling, TLS sessions, and plugin execution. The current evidence does not justify taking that risk.

## Validation
- From the workspace root, try `make` first, followed by `make check` if available; the Makefile defines `make` as the build entrypoint and provides `test`, not `check`. Record any missing dependency or generated-file failure exactly.
- For a bounded independent investigation, capture `ps -p <pid> -o pid,stat,pcpu,etime,wchan,args` and a short `strace -ttT -e trace=pselect6,select,poll,ppoll,epoll_wait -p <pid>` while idle and while serving a request. Do not claim reproduction unless this demonstrates the reported failure.

## Patch Pass

Subject: Report Munin node poll evidence as inconclusive

## Commit Message
No source change. The available evidence points to Munin node waiting for input, not a demonstrated busy loop; more runtime evidence is needed before proposing a fix.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
Fixer observed `munin-node` sleeping in `pselect6`, with calls timing out after about 1.8–2 seconds. The process was reported at 0.9% CPU, and `perf_ctx_enable` accounted for 100% of sampled frames; that percentage describes where samples landed, not CPU utilization. The `/proc` state was sleeping, with `poll_schedule_timeout` as the wait channel.

The entrypoint `script/munin-node` delegates to `Munin::Node::Server->run`, which inherits its event loop from `Net::Server::Fork`. This is consistent with an idle daemon waiting for input. The evidence does not identify a faulty Munin operation or show excessive CPU use, so I made no source change. The process was no longer available for an independent comparison. The expected effect of this report is to avoid a speculative change to polling, connection, or timeout behavior until stronger evidence identifies a defect.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` — failed because `Build.PL` could not find `Module/Build.pm`.
- `make check` — unavailable: no `check` target.
- `perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node` — passed (`syntax OK`).
- Independent process check: `ps -p 3947104 -o pid,stat,pcpu,etime,wchan,args` returned no process row, so a live comparison or `strace` reproduction could not be performed. The reported failure was not independently reproduced.
- No relevant Munin event-loop replacement helper was found; the existing patterns are `Net::Server::Fork`, `Munin::Common::TLSServer`, and `Munin::Common::Timeout`. `HACKING.pod` directs bug-fix patches to `stable-2.0`; this Debian source tree was used for investigation.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: ok

The patch output is a no-source-change diagnosis, appropriately classified `inferred`. It accurately distinguishes the 0.9% CPU measurement from the profiler’s 100% sample attribution and does not claim independent reproduction. Validation names the failed `make` command and missing `Module/Build.pm`, the unavailable `make check` target, and a successful entrypoint syntax check. The workspace has no source changes versus the original.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Codex suba

[truncated 3140 bytes]

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem
Fixer flagged `munin-node` as a likely busy poller, but the collected trace does not establish excessive CPU use or a Munin code defect. Its three `pselect6` calls wait roughly 1.8–2 seconds each before timing out.

## Evidence Confidence
**inferred** — The evidence suggests normal blocking while the node waits for input, not a demonstrated busy loop. It contains no Perl-level stack tying the poll to Munin code. This is a no-patch diagnosis plan; don’t propose a source change without stronger evidence.

## Proposed Subject
No source patch. Investigate whether the observed idle wait is expected or whether CPU use can be tied to a specific Munin code path.

## Patch Plan
- Inspect the script entrypoint first: `script/munin-node` initializes the daemon and calls `Munin::Node::Server->run`; the server inherits its event loop from `Net::Server::Fork` (`lib/Munin/Node/Server.pm`).
- Compare an idle process with one serving a request. The server reads via `<STDIN>` or the project TLS wrapper; plugin-child output has a separate `select` loop in `lib/Munin/Node/OS.pm`, active only while a plugin runs.
- Follow existing conventions if evidence later warrants a patch: `Net::Server::Fork`, `Munin::Common::TLSServer`, and `Munin::Common::Timeout`. No local helper for replacing the server event loop was found.
- No prior Fixer patch exists to improve or replace. Do not alter timeout or polling behavior speculatively, and avoid awkward control flow such as an unnecessary `goto`.
- `HACKING.pod` says bug fixes should target upstream `stable-2.0`; use this Debian source snapshot for investigation, not as the default merge base.

## Risks
Changing polling or timeout behavior could affect connection handling, TLS sessions, and plugin execution. The current evidence does not justify taking that risk.

## Validation
- From the workspace root, try `make` first, followed by `make check` if available; the Makefile defines `make` as the build entrypoint and provides `test`, not `check`. Record any missing dependency or generated-file failure exactly.
- For a bounded independent investigation, capture `ps -p <pid> -o pid,stat,pcpu,etime,wchan,args` and a short `strace -ttT -e trace=pselect6,select,poll,ppoll,epoll_wait -p <pid>` while idle and while serving a request. Do not claim reproduction unless this demonstrates the reported failure.

## Patch Pass

Subject: Report Munin node poll evidence as inconclusive

## Commit Message
No source change. The available evidence points to Munin node waiting for input, not a demonstrated busy loop; more runtime evidence is needed before proposing a fix.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
Fixer observed `munin-node` sleeping in `pselect6`, with calls timing out after about 1.8–2 seconds. The process was reported at 0.9% CPU, and `perf_ctx_enable` accounted for 100% of sampled frames; that percentage describes where samples landed, not CPU utilization. The `/proc` state was sleeping, with `poll_schedule_timeout` as the wait channel.

The entrypoint `script/munin-node` delegates to `Munin::Node::Server->run`, which inherits its event loop from `Net::Server::Fork`. This is consistent with an idle daemon waiting for input. The evidence does not identify a faulty Munin operation or show excessive CPU use, so I made no source change. The process was no longer available for an independent comparison. The expected effect of this report is to avoid a speculative change to polling, connection, or timeout behavior until stronger evidence identifies a defect.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` — failed because `Build.PL` could not find `Module/Build.pm`.
- `make check` — unavailable: no `check` target.
- `perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node` — passed (`syntax OK`).
- Independent process check: `ps -p 3947104 -o pid,stat,pcpu,etime,wchan,args` returned no process row, so a live comparison or `strace` reproduction could not be performed. The reported failure was not independently reproduced.
- No relevant Munin event-loop replacement helper was found; the existing patterns are `Net::Server::Fork`, `Munin::Common::TLSServer`, and `Munin::Common::Timeout`. `HACKING.pod` directs bug-fix patches to `stable-2.0`; this Debian source tree was used for investigation.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: ok

The patch output is a no-source-change diagnosis, appropriately classified `inferred`. It accurately distinguishes the 0.9% CPU measurement from the profiler’s 100% sample attribution and does not claim independent reproduction. Validation names the failed `make` command and missing `Module/Build.pm`, the unavailable `make check` target, and a successful entrypoint syntax check. The workspace has no source changes versus the original.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Codex suba

[truncated 3140 bytes]

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem
- Fixer observed high CPU in a Perl `munin-node --foreground` process, with samples passing through `pselect6` and a `poll`-related wait channel. The bundle does not show which Munin or dependency code path caused it.
- Source inspection found that `script/munin-node` delegates to `Munin::Node::Server`, which subclasses `Net::Server::Fork`. Munin’s request loop reads until EOF under a timeout; its explicit `select` loop in `Munin::Node::OS::_read_from_child` waits indefinitely and reads child output. Neither establishes a busy-loop defect.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Proposed Subject
- No source patch yet; gather process-level and language-level evidence before attributing the CPU signal to Munin or Perl.

## Patch Plan
- Diagnosis only. The evidence is profiler-only and does not identify a faulty loop, so a code patch would be speculative.
- Before any edit, collect a language-level stack and fuller syscall trace for the affected process, including the installed `Net::Server` version, to distinguish Munin request handling, plugin-child pipe handling, and the dependency’s accept loop.
- No prior Fixer patch needs replacement. If later evidence identifies a Munin defect, follow the surrounding Perl style and use existing timeout/process helpers; no relevant wrapper for the suspected server accept loop was found. Avoid introducing polling or awkward control flow without evidence.
- Contribution docs distinguish bug-fix bases (`stable-2.0`) from other work (`master`); the checked-out upstream-style base is local `master`, with no remote or other refs available to resolve intent. Any eventual public patch should target the branch matching the confirmed change type.

## Risks
- Changing event-loop behavior without a stack tied to the script could mask normal blocking behavior or alter server semantics.
- The only `select` site found is for child-plugin stdout/stderr, not the server accept loop.

## Validation
- No tests were run during this planning-only pass.
- First try project-level `make` and, if available, `make check` from the workspace root. Report each exact failure and reason; if dependencies or generated files block them, run the narrowest reproducible Munin-node compile/test.
- Make one bounded, independent reproduction attempt by capturing a fresh stack/syscall sample from the affected process using the evidence bundle’s PID if available. If the process is gone or no PID is recorded, report that the signal cannot be reproduced from this workspace rather than claim reproduction.

## Patch Pass

Subject: Diagnose munin-node CPU signal before proposing a patch

## Commit Message
No source change. The evidence suggests repeated polling may be involved, but does not identify a faulty Munin code path. The existing server waits through `Net::Server::Fork`; Munin’s explicit `select` loop reads plugin child output and waits indefinitely. Without a script-level stack or a captured reproducer, changing either path would be speculative.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
Fixer’s profiler report shows a `munin-node` Perl process, three `pselect6` samples, a `poll_schedule_timeout` wait channel, and 100% of sampled CPU attributed to the kernel symbol `perf_ctx_enable`. The bundle does not include a script-level stack or direct `strace` output establishing that Munin’s wait returned repeatedly without blocking; no affected process was available in this workspace. Source inspection found the server delegates its accept loop to `Net::Server::Fork`, while Munin’s own `select` loop waits indefinitely for plugin output. No source change is justified until a fuller trace ties the signal to a specific loop.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` failed because `Module::Build` is unavailable (`Can't locate Module/Build.pm` at `Build.PL` line 80).
- `make check` failed because the project has no `check` target.
- `perl -Ilib -c -T script/munin-node` passed (`syntax OK`).
- `timeout 5s perl -Ilib -T "$PWD/script/munin-node" --help` exited successfully; this is only a help smoke check, not a reproduction.
- The bounded process check found no running `munin-node` process, so the reported CPU signal could not be independently reproduced here.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: ok

No source diff was generated. The `inferred` diagnosis appropriately treats the three `pselect6` samples as insufficient to identify a faulty Munin code path, and validation reports the project-level build blockers and a non-reproduction smoke check.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Codex suba

[truncated 3140 bytes]

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem
- Fixer observed high CPU in a Perl `munin-node --foreground` process, with samples passing through `pselect6` and a `poll`-related wait channel. The bundle does not show which Munin or dependency code path caused it.
- Source inspection found that `script/munin-node` delegates to `Munin::Node::Server`, which subclasses `Net::Server::Fork`. Munin’s request loop reads until EOF under a timeout; its explicit `select` loop in `Munin::Node::OS::_read_from_child` waits indefinitely and reads child output. Neither establishes a busy-loop defect.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Proposed Subject
- No source patch yet; gather process-level and language-level evidence before attributing the CPU signal to Munin or Perl.

## Patch Plan
- Diagnosis only. The evidence is profiler-only and does not identify a faulty loop, so a code patch would be speculative.
- Before any edit, collect a language-level stack and fuller syscall trace for the affected process, including the installed `Net::Server` version, to distinguish Munin request handling, plugin-child pipe handling, and the dependency’s accept loop.
- No prior Fixer patch needs replacement. If later evidence identifies a Munin defect, follow the surrounding Perl style and use existing timeout/process helpers; no relevant wrapper for the suspected server accept loop was found. Avoid introducing polling or awkward control flow without evidence.
- Contribution docs distinguish bug-fix bases (`stable-2.0`) from other work (`master`); the checked-out upstream-style base is local `master`, with no remote or other refs available to resolve intent. Any eventual public patch should target the branch matching the confirmed change type.

## Risks
- Changing event-loop behavior without a stack tied to the script could mask normal blocking behavior or alter server semantics.
- The only `select` site found is for child-plugin stdout/stderr, not the server accept loop.

## Validation
- No tests were run during this planning-only pass.
- First try project-level `make` and, if available, `make check` from the workspace root. Report each exact failure and reason; if dependencies or generated files block them, run the narrowest reproducible Munin-node compile/test.
- Make one bounded, independent reproduction attempt by capturing a fresh stack/syscall sample from the affected process using the evidence bundle’s PID if available. If the process is gone or no PID is recorded, report that the signal cannot be reproduced from this workspace rather than claim reproduction.

## Patch Pass

Subject: Diagnose munin-node CPU signal before proposing a patch

## Commit Message
No source change. The evidence suggests repeated polling may be involved, but does not identify a faulty Munin code path. The existing server waits through `Net::Server::Fork`; Munin’s explicit `select` loop reads plugin child output and waits indefinitely. Without a script-level stack or a captured reproducer, changing either path would be speculative.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
Fixer’s profiler report shows a `munin-node` Perl process, three `pselect6` samples, a `poll_schedule_timeout` wait channel, and 100% of sampled CPU attributed to the kernel symbol `perf_ctx_enable`. The bundle does not include a script-level stack or direct `strace` output establishing that Munin’s wait returned repeatedly without blocking; no affected process was available in this workspace. Source inspection found the server delegates its accept loop to `Net::Server::Fork`, while Munin’s own `select` loop waits indefinitely for plugin output. No source change is justified until a fuller trace ties the signal to a specific loop.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` failed because `Module::Build` is unavailable (`Can't locate Module/Build.pm` at `Build.PL` line 80).
- `make check` failed because the project has no `check` target.
- `perl -Ilib -c -T script/munin-node` passed (`syntax OK`).
- `timeout 5s perl -Ilib -T "$PWD/script/munin-node" --help` exited successfully; this is only a help smoke check, not a reproduction.
- The bounded process check found no running `munin-node` process, so the reported CPU signal could not be independently reproduced here.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: ok

No source diff was generated. The `inferred` diagnosis appropriately treats the three `pselect6` samples as insufficient to identify a faulty Munin code path, and validation reports the project-level build blockers and a non-reproduction smoke check.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Codex suba

[truncated 27431 bytes]

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem
- Fixer observed `munin-node` in `pselect6`, but the captured calls blocked for about 1.8–2 seconds, with `wchan=poll_schedule_timeout` and 0.9% CPU. That does not support the reported busy-poll interpretation.
- The script entrypoint delegates to `Munin::Node::Server->run()`. The server loop comes from `Net::Server::Fork`; `lib/Munin/Node/OS.pm:99` uses blocking `select()` for plugin-pipe I/O, not evidence of a tight loop.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred
- No source defect is established, so no patch is planned. The profiler observation is real, but it does not show a Munin busy loop or identify a responsible source path.

## Proposed Subject
- No source patch; investigate the profiler signal before proposing a Munin change.

## Patch Plan
- Inspect the `Net::Server::Fork` event-loop behavior and gather a Perl-level stack or trace tied to the entrypoint before considering a source change. Investigate Perl itself only if evidence points to the runtime.
- No relevant local event-loop helper was found; the node uses `Net::Server` callbacks and `Munin::Common::Timeout` conventions. No prior Fixer patch was found to replace.
- For a later upstream bug-fix patch, `HACKING.pod` names `stable-2.0` as the target. Do not make a Debian-only workaround.

## Risks
- Changing polling or timeout behavior without reproducing the workload could alter node protocol handling or plugin execution. Avoid speculative changes and awkward control flow such as an unnecessary `goto`.

## Validation
- From the workspace root, try `make`, then `make test`; there is no `check` target. If dependencies or generated files block these, record the exact command and failure reason before trying a focused Perl compile/test.
- Make one bounded reproduction attempt with an isolated node configuration and an unused port; inspect poll syscall durations using `strace` and process CPU/state using `ps`. Do not claim reproduction unless it shows repeated immediate poll returns or a Perl-level stack identifying the Munin source path.

## Patch Pass

Subject: Diagnose timed `munin-node` polling without a source patch

## Commit Message
The available evidence does not establish a Munin busy-loop defect. `munin-node`’s event loop waits for input with a timeout; the captured calls look like timed waits, not continuous polling. No source change is warranted.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
Fixer captured three `pselect6` calls taking about 1.8–2 seconds each and returning timeouts; `/proc` showed the process sleeping, with `wchan=poll_schedule_timeout` and 0.9% CPU. The kernel `perf_ctx_enable` hotspot does not identify a Munin code path, and the native stack has no Perl-level caller. Source inspection shows the entrypoint delegates to `Net::Server::Fork`, whose installed event loop waits for input with `IO::Select->can_read(2)`; the `select()` in `lib/Munin/Node/OS.pm:99` is a blocking plugin-pipe read. I made no source change because the evidence does not establish a defect. The expected effect of this diagnosis is to avoid a speculative patch; a Perl-level trace or repeated immediate poll returns is needed before proposing one.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` and `make test` both stopped at `Build.PL`: `Can't locate Module/Build.pm in @INC`. `make check` is unavailable: `No rule to make target 'check'`.
- Focused syntax checks passed: `perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node` and `perl -T -Ilib -c lib/Munin/Node/OS.pm`; the latter emitted subroutine redefinition warnings.
- Attempted a bounded, loopback-only `strace` run of the installed `munin-node`; tracing was blocked with `PTRACE_TRACEME: Operation not permitted`. The captured process PID was no longer running, so the original signal was not independently reproduced.
- No relevant local event-loop wrapper was found. `HACKING.pod` documents Perl style and names `stable-2.0` as the bug-fix base; no branch or patch was prepared.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: fix-needed

## Findings
- In `## Issue Connection`, revise “three `pselect6` calls taking about 1.8–2 seconds each and returning timeouts.” Only the first two trace entries include completed timeout results and durations; the third is truncated before its return value. Describe the two complete calls separately.
- Attribute `IO::Select->can_read(2)` explicitly to the installed `/usr/share/perl5/Net/Server/Fork.pm`, not the prepared Munin source tree. The workspace confirms Munin inherits `Net::Server::Fork`, but that dependency implementation is external.

## Refinement Pass 1

Confirmed: the independent check supports the corrected syscall wording and external-dependency attribution. No source change is justified; the current diagnosis remains appropriate.

## Review Pass 2

RESULT: fix-needed

## Findings
- `refine-1-output.txt` is only an acknowledgment; it omits the required author response sections and does not provide a revised diagnosis.
- State the syscall evidence precisely: two `pselect6` calls completed with timeouts after about 1.8 and 2.0 seconds; the third entry is truncated before its result and duration.
- Attribute `IO::Select->can_read(2)` to the installed `/usr/share/perl5/Net/Server/Fork.pm`, outside the prepared Munin workspace and potentially version-dependent.
- Provide the required `inferred` confidence and no-patch report, including `Git Add Paths: None`. No source diff is present in the worktree.

## Refinement Pass 2

Subject: Diagnose timed Munin node waits

## Commit Message
No source change is warranted: the collected evidence does not establish a Munin busy-poll defect. This diagnosis distinguishes the observed timed waits from a confirmed source-level cause.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
The bundle does not establish a user-visible failure. It shows two complete `pselect6` calls returning timeouts after about 1.8 and 2.0 seconds; the third entry is truncated before its result and duration. `/proc` reports the process sleeping, with `wchan=poll_schedule_timeout` and 0.9% CPU. The kernel `perf_ctx_enable` hotspot and native stack do not identify a Munin source-level caller. The workspace shows that `script/munin-node` delegates to `Munin::Node::Server`, which inherits `Net::Server::Fork`. Separately, the installed system’s `/usr/share/perl5/Net/Server/Fork.pm` implements the wait with `IO::Select->can_read(2)`; that dependency is outside the workspace and may differ from the version used upstream. I made no source change because the evidence does not establish a defect. The expected effect of this diagnosis is to avoid a speculative patch until a Perl-level trace or repeated immediate poll returns identify a responsible code path.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` and `make test` both stopped at `Build.PL` because `Module::Build.pm` is missing. `make -n check` reported `No rule to make target 'check'`.
- Focused checks passed: `perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node` and `perl -T -Ilib -c lib/Munin/Node/OS.pm`; the latter emitted subroutine-redefinition warnings.
- Bounded reproduction attempt using `timeout --signal=TERM 7s strace -ttT -f -e trace=pselect6,select,poll,ppoll /usr/bin/munin-node --foreground --config <(printf ...) --servicedir /usr/share/munin/plugins` was blocked by `PTRACE_TRACEME: Operation not permitted`; the captured PID was no longer running.
- No relevant local event-loop wrapper was found. `HACKING.pod` supplies the Perl style guidance and names `stable-2.0` as the bug-fix base; no branch or source patch was prepared.

## Review Pass 3

RESULT: ok

The latest response addresses the review findings: it distinguishes the two completed timeout calls from the truncated third, attributes `IO::Select->can_read(2)` to the installed dependency, and retains an `inferred` no-patch diagnosis with the required sections and validation details. The worktree is clean; no source diff is proposed.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Codex suba

[truncated 27431 bytes]

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem
- Fixer observed `munin-node` in `pselect6`, but the captured calls blocked for about 1.8–2 seconds, with `wchan=poll_schedule_timeout` and 0.9% CPU. That does not support the reported busy-poll interpretation.
- The script entrypoint delegates to `Munin::Node::Server->run()`. The server loop comes from `Net::Server::Fork`; `lib/Munin/Node/OS.pm:99` uses blocking `select()` for plugin-pipe I/O, not evidence of a tight loop.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred
- No source defect is established, so no patch is planned. The profiler observation is real, but it does not show a Munin busy loop or identify a responsible source path.

## Proposed Subject
- No source patch; investigate the profiler signal before proposing a Munin change.

## Patch Plan
- Inspect the `Net::Server::Fork` event-loop behavior and gather a Perl-level stack or trace tied to the entrypoint before considering a source change. Investigate Perl itself only if evidence points to the runtime.
- No relevant local event-loop helper was found; the node uses `Net::Server` callbacks and `Munin::Common::Timeout` conventions. No prior Fixer patch was found to replace.
- For a later upstream bug-fix patch, `HACKING.pod` names `stable-2.0` as the target. Do not make a Debian-only workaround.

## Risks
- Changing polling or timeout behavior without reproducing the workload could alter node protocol handling or plugin execution. Avoid speculative changes and awkward control flow such as an unnecessary `goto`.

## Validation
- From the workspace root, try `make`, then `make test`; there is no `check` target. If dependencies or generated files block these, record the exact command and failure reason before trying a focused Perl compile/test.
- Make one bounded reproduction attempt with an isolated node configuration and an unused port; inspect poll syscall durations using `strace` and process CPU/state using `ps`. Do not claim reproduction unless it shows repeated immediate poll returns or a Perl-level stack identifying the Munin source path.

## Patch Pass

Subject: Diagnose timed `munin-node` polling without a source patch

## Commit Message
The available evidence does not establish a Munin busy-loop defect. `munin-node`’s event loop waits for input with a timeout; the captured calls look like timed waits, not continuous polling. No source change is warranted.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
Fixer captured three `pselect6` calls taking about 1.8–2 seconds each and returning timeouts; `/proc` showed the process sleeping, with `wchan=poll_schedule_timeout` and 0.9% CPU. The kernel `perf_ctx_enable` hotspot does not identify a Munin code path, and the native stack has no Perl-level caller. Source inspection shows the entrypoint delegates to `Net::Server::Fork`, whose installed event loop waits for input with `IO::Select->can_read(2)`; the `select()` in `lib/Munin/Node/OS.pm:99` is a blocking plugin-pipe read. I made no source change because the evidence does not establish a defect. The expected effect of this diagnosis is to avoid a speculative patch; a Perl-level trace or repeated immediate poll returns is needed before proposing one.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` and `make test` both stopped at `Build.PL`: `Can't locate Module/Build.pm in @INC`. `make check` is unavailable: `No rule to make target 'check'`.
- Focused syntax checks passed: `perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node` and `perl -T -Ilib -c lib/Munin/Node/OS.pm`; the latter emitted subroutine redefinition warnings.
- Attempted a bounded, loopback-only `strace` run of the installed `munin-node`; tracing was blocked with `PTRACE_TRACEME: Operation not permitted`. The captured process PID was no longer running, so the original signal was not independently reproduced.
- No relevant local event-loop wrapper was found. `HACKING.pod` documents Perl style and names `stable-2.0` as the bug-fix base; no branch or patch was prepared.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: fix-needed

## Findings
- In `## Issue Connection`, revise “three `pselect6` calls taking about 1.8–2 seconds each and returning timeouts.” Only the first two trace entries include completed timeout results and durations; the third is truncated before its return value. Describe the two complete calls separately.
- Attribute `IO::Select->can_read(2)` explicitly to the installed `/usr/share/perl5/Net/Server/Fork.pm`, not the prepared Munin source tree. The workspace confirms Munin inherits `Net::Server::Fork`, but that dependency implementation is external.

## Refinement Pass 1

Confirmed: the independent check supports the corrected syscall wording and external-dependency attribution. No source change is justified; the current diagnosis remains appropriate.

## Review Pass 2

RESULT: fix-needed

## Findings
- `refine-1-output.txt` is only an acknowledgment; it omits the required author response sections and does not provide a revised diagnosis.
- State the syscall evidence precisely: two `pselect6` calls completed with timeouts after about 1.8 and 2.0 seconds; the third entry is truncated before its result and duration.
- Attribute `IO::Select->can_read(2)` to the installed `/usr/share/perl5/Net/Server/Fork.pm`, outside the prepared Munin workspace and potentially version-dependent.
- Provide the required `inferred` confidence and no-patch report, including `Git Add Paths: None`. No source diff is present in the worktree.

## Refinement Pass 2

Subject: Diagnose timed Munin node waits

## Commit Message
No source change is warranted: the collected evidence does not establish a Munin busy-poll defect. This diagnosis distinguishes the observed timed waits from a confirmed source-level cause.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
The bundle does not establish a user-visible failure. It shows two complete `pselect6` calls returning timeouts after about 1.8 and 2.0 seconds; the third entry is truncated before its result and duration. `/proc` reports the process sleeping, with `wchan=poll_schedule_timeout` and 0.9% CPU. The kernel `perf_ctx_enable` hotspot and native stack do not identify a Munin source-level caller. The workspace shows that `script/munin-node` delegates to `Munin::Node::Server`, which inherits `Net::Server::Fork`. Separately, the installed system’s `/usr/share/perl5/Net/Server/Fork.pm` implements the wait with `IO::Select->can_read(2)`; that dependency is outside the workspace and may differ from the version used upstream. I made no source change because the evidence does not establish a defect. The expected effect of this diagnosis is to avoid a speculative patch until a Perl-level trace or repeated immediate poll returns identify a responsible code path.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` and `make test` both stopped at `Build.PL` because `Module::Build.pm` is missing. `make -n check` reported `No rule to make target 'check'`.
- Focused checks passed: `perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node` and `perl -T -Ilib -c lib/Munin/Node/OS.pm`; the latter emitted subroutine-redefinition warnings.
- Bounded reproduction attempt using `timeout --signal=TERM 7s strace -ttT -f -e trace=pselect6,select,poll,ppoll /usr/bin/munin-node --foreground --config <(printf ...) --servicedir /usr/share/munin/plugins` was blocked by `PTRACE_TRACEME: Operation not permitted`; the captured PID was no longer running.
- No relevant local event-loop wrapper was found. `HACKING.pod` supplies the Perl style guidance and names `stable-2.0` as the bug-fix base; no branch or source patch was prepared.

## Review Pass 3

RESULT: ok

The latest response addresses the review findings: it distinguishes the two completed timeout calls from the truncated third, attributes `IO::Select->can_read(2)` to the installed dependency, and retains an `inferred` no-patch diagnosis with the required sections and validation details. The worktree is clean; no source diff is proposed.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Codex suba

[truncated 3140 bytes]

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem
The report labels `munin-node` as busy-polling, but the captured `pselect6` calls wait roughly 1.8–2 seconds before timing out. `script/munin-node` starts `Munin::Node::Server`; its request loop waits for client input. Listener polling is delegated to `Net::Server::Fork`, whose two-second select timeout appears consistent with the trace. The reported kernel symbol and profile do not establish high CPU in Munin.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

The evidence does not establish a source bug, so this plan is for diagnosis only—not a source patch. A read-only inspection found the entrypoint, request loop, and delegated listener behavior; the available trace is insufficient to distinguish normal idle polling from another cause of the reported CPU.

## Proposed Subject
No patch proposed. Diagnose the apparent mismatch between the profiler’s busy-poll classification and the timed listener waits.

## Patch Plan
- Do not change Munin or Perl based on this evidence alone; investigate the `munin-node` entrypoint before considering the runtime.
- On the affected host, collect CPU usage and a language-level or syscall trace during the reported condition. Look for sustained CPU consumption, immediate repeated readiness/error returns, or fork churn—not just periodic timeouts.
- If evidence later supports an upstream bug, follow `CONTRIBUTING.md` and `HACKING.pod`; the latter directs bug-fix patches to `stable-2.0`. `Net::Server::Fork` owns the listener loop; no relevant local event-loop helper was found.

## Risks
Changing the listener loop based on these samples could disrupt expected server behavior without addressing the reported CPU. Do not introduce avoidable control-flow workarounds such as `goto`; no code change is justified yet.

## Validation
- From the workspace root, try `make` first; then try `make check` only if available. The Makefile exposes `build` and `test`, not a `check` target.
- On the affected host, make one bounded observation attempt with `timeout 10s strace -tt -T -e trace=pselect6 -p <munin-node-pid>`. This may confirm whether waits remain near two seconds, but cannot by itself reproduce high CPU; the workspace does not contain the original running process or environment.
- No focused compile is planned because no source patch is proposed.

## Patch Pass

Subject: Diagnose munin-node polling report without speculative patch

## Commit Message
No source change. The available trace does not establish a Munin bug: `pselect6` waits for roughly two seconds before timing out, and `/proc` reported the process sleeping. `munin-node` delegates listener handling to `Net::Server::Fork`, where that interval is consistent with idle listener polling. More evidence from the affected host is needed before proposing a code change.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
Fixer collected a “busy-poll” classification for `/usr/bin/perl -wT /usr/sbin/munin-node --foreground`. However, the captured `pselect6` calls wait about 1.8 and 2 seconds, the process state is sleeping, and the sampled hot symbol is the kernel’s `perf_ctx_enable`, not a Munin function. Source inspection found that `script/munin-node` starts `Munin::Node::Server`, while listener polling is delegated to `Net::Server::Fork`; its select timeout is consistent with the observed waits. These signals suggest normal idle polling, but do not explain the reported CPU or independently establish a failure. I made no source change; the expected effect is to avoid an unsupported upstream fix and focus further investigation on the affected host’s CPU and trace data.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` from the workspace root failed at `Build.PL`: `Can't locate Module/Build.pm in @INC`.
- `make check` is not available as a project target.
- Focused syntax checks passed: `perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node` and `perl -Ilib -c lib/Munin/Node/Server.pm`.
- The bounded reproduction/observation could not be run: `ps -p 3947104 -o pid,stat,pcpu,etime,wchan,args` found no such process in this environment, so no `strace` comparison was possible. No local reproduction was established.
- No relevant local listener-loop helper was found; `Net::Server::Fork` supplies that behavior. The workspace branch is `master`; `HACKING.pod` says bug-fix patches should target `stable-2.0` if later evidence justifies one.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: ok

No source diff is present. The response appropriately treats the profiler and syscall trace as indirect evidence, labels confidence `inferred`, and avoids proposing an unsupported Munin or Perl change. It connects the timed `pselect6` waits and sleeping `/proc` state to the listener-polling hypothesis, reports the build blocker and focused syntax checks, and notes that the sampled process was unavailable for independent reproduction.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Codex suba

[truncated 3140 bytes]

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem
The report labels `munin-node` as busy-polling, but the captured `pselect6` calls wait roughly 1.8–2 seconds before timing out. `script/munin-node` starts `Munin::Node::Server`; its request loop waits for client input. Listener polling is delegated to `Net::Server::Fork`, whose two-second select timeout appears consistent with the trace. The reported kernel symbol and profile do not establish high CPU in Munin.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

The evidence does not establish a source bug, so this plan is for diagnosis only—not a source patch. A read-only inspection found the entrypoint, request loop, and delegated listener behavior; the available trace is insufficient to distinguish normal idle polling from another cause of the reported CPU.

## Proposed Subject
No patch proposed. Diagnose the apparent mismatch between the profiler’s busy-poll classification and the timed listener waits.

## Patch Plan
- Do not change Munin or Perl based on this evidence alone; investigate the `munin-node` entrypoint before considering the runtime.
- On the affected host, collect CPU usage and a language-level or syscall trace during the reported condition. Look for sustained CPU consumption, immediate repeated readiness/error returns, or fork churn—not just periodic timeouts.
- If evidence later supports an upstream bug, follow `CONTRIBUTING.md` and `HACKING.pod`; the latter directs bug-fix patches to `stable-2.0`. `Net::Server::Fork` owns the listener loop; no relevant local event-loop helper was found.

## Risks
Changing the listener loop based on these samples could disrupt expected server behavior without addressing the reported CPU. Do not introduce avoidable control-flow workarounds such as `goto`; no code change is justified yet.

## Validation
- From the workspace root, try `make` first; then try `make check` only if available. The Makefile exposes `build` and `test`, not a `check` target.
- On the affected host, make one bounded observation attempt with `timeout 10s strace -tt -T -e trace=pselect6 -p <munin-node-pid>`. This may confirm whether waits remain near two seconds, but cannot by itself reproduce high CPU; the workspace does not contain the original running process or environment.
- No focused compile is planned because no source patch is proposed.

## Patch Pass

Subject: Diagnose munin-node polling report without speculative patch

## Commit Message
No source change. The available trace does not establish a Munin bug: `pselect6` waits for roughly two seconds before timing out, and `/proc` reported the process sleeping. `munin-node` delegates listener handling to `Net::Server::Fork`, where that interval is consistent with idle listener polling. More evidence from the affected host is needed before proposing a code change.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
Fixer collected a “busy-poll” classification for `/usr/bin/perl -wT /usr/sbin/munin-node --foreground`. However, the captured `pselect6` calls wait about 1.8 and 2 seconds, the process state is sleeping, and the sampled hot symbol is the kernel’s `perf_ctx_enable`, not a Munin function. Source inspection found that `script/munin-node` starts `Munin::Node::Server`, while listener polling is delegated to `Net::Server::Fork`; its select timeout is consistent with the observed waits. These signals suggest normal idle polling, but do not explain the reported CPU or independently establish a failure. I made no source change; the expected effect is to avoid an unsupported upstream fix and focus further investigation on the affected host’s CPU and trace data.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` from the workspace root failed at `Build.PL`: `Can't locate Module/Build.pm in @INC`.
- `make check` is not available as a project target.
- Focused syntax checks passed: `perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node` and `perl -Ilib -c lib/Munin/Node/Server.pm`.
- The bounded reproduction/observation could not be run: `ps -p 3947104 -o pid,stat,pcpu,etime,wchan,args` found no such process in this environment, so no `strace` comparison was possible. No local reproduction was established.
- No relevant local listener-loop helper was found; `Net::Server::Fork` supplies that behavior. The workspace branch is `master`; `HACKING.pod` says bug-fix patches should target `stable-2.0` if later evidence justifies one.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: ok

No source diff is present. The response appropriately treats the profiler and syscall trace as indirect evidence, labels confidence `inferred`, and avoids proposing an unsupported Munin or Perl change. It connects the timed `pselect6` waits and sleeping `/proc` state to the listener-polling hypothesis, reports the build blocker and focused syntax checks, and notes that the sampled process was unavailable for independent reproduction.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Codex suba

[truncated 27431 bytes]

Response

## Plan Pass

The completed plan remains **inferred**: the trace is consistent with an idle listener wait, and it does not establish a Munin defect. No files were changed. One scout could not confirm the exact inherited wait from the workspace source; the other identified a 2-second readiness wait in the installed `Net::Server::Fork`, so treat that as supporting context rather than proof of live CPU behavior.

## Patch Pass

Thanks—the independent source review agrees that no Munin source patch is justified. The trace’s two-second waits are consistent with the installed `Net::Server::Fork` listener, while Munin’s plugin-output read also blocks; the original process was unavailable for a live reproduction.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: fix-needed

## Findings
- There is no reviewable patch: `git diff` is empty and the workspace is clean. `patch-output.txt` contains only a short diagnosis, not the required patch/report sections. Regenerate the author response with explicit `## Evidence Confidence` and `## Validation`; with no source change justified, `## Git Add Paths` should be `None`.
- Keep the diagnosis cautious: the evidence shows a sleeping process and `pselect6` calls timing out after roughly two seconds. That matches the installed `Net::Server::Fork` listener’s readiness wait, but does not prove the process was consuming excessive CPU or justify a Munin source change.
- The project guidance was checked: `CONTRIBUTING.md` points to `HACKING.pod`, which says bug-fix patches target `stable-2.0`; no patch was prepared, so no base-branch choice or local helper use applies.

## Refinement Pass 1

Subject: Diagnose munin-node idle polling evidence

## Commit Message
No source patch. The captured `pselect6` calls wait about two seconds and time out while the process is sleeping, which is consistent with the installed `Net::Server::Fork` listener’s readiness wait. The evidence does not establish a Munin defect.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
Fixer’s trace shows three `pselect6` calls, each waiting about two seconds, and `/proc` reported the process sleeping. The kernel stack shows time in `poll_schedule_timeout`; the `perf_ctx_enable` sample attribution does not establish high userspace CPU use. Munin’s entrypoint delegates its listener to `Net::Server::Fork`, whose installed implementation uses a two-second readiness wait. That is a plausible explanation for the trace, not proof of excessive CPU consumption. No source change is justified, so there is no expected code-change effect.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` from the workspace root failed because `Module::Build` is missing: `Can't locate Module/Build.pm`.
- `make check` is unavailable; the workspace `Makefile` has no `check` target.
- `perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node` passed (`syntax OK`).
- The bounded live reproduction could not run: evidence PID `3947104` is unavailable in this environment. The installed `Net::Server::Fork` source’s two-second wait matches the trace, but does not reproduce excessive CPU use.
- No relevant Munin listener helper was found; the listener comes from `Net::Server::Fork`. `CONTRIBUTING.md` points to `HACKING.pod`, which directs bug-fix patches to `stable-2.0`. No patch was prepared, so there is no base-branch choice to report.

## Review Pass 2

RESULT: fix-needed

## Findings
- In `## Issue Connection`, correct “three `pselect6` calls, each waiting about two seconds.” The evidence has only two completed calls, taking 1.815530s and 2.002044s; the third call is truncated before its result. State those measured timings and note that the third result is unavailable. The rest of the no-patch diagnosis, confidence classification, and validation report are consistent with the evidence.

## Refinement Pass 2

Subject: Diagnose munin-node idle polling evidence

## Commit Message
No source patch. Two completed `pselect6` calls waited 1.815530 seconds and 2.002044 seconds before timing out while the process was reported sleeping. This is consistent with the installed `Net::Server::Fork` listener’s readiness wait, but does not establish a Munin defect.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
Fixer’s trace contains two completed `pselect6` calls, taking 1.815530 seconds and 2.002044 seconds; a third call is truncated before its result. `/proc` reported the process sleeping, and the kernel stack shows time in `poll_schedule_timeout`. The `perf_ctx_enable` sample attribution does not establish high userspace CPU use. Munin delegates its listener to `Net::Server::Fork`, whose installed implementation uses a two-second readiness wait. That is a plausible explanation for the measured calls, not proof of excessive CPU consumption. No source change is justified.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` from the workspace root failed because `Module::Build` is missing: `Can't locate Module/Build.pm`.
- `make check` is unavailable; the workspace `Makefile` has no `check` target.
- `perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node` passed (`syntax OK`).
- The bounded live reproduction could not run: evidence PID `3947104` is unavailable in this environment. The installed `Net::Server::Fork` source’s two-second wait matches the two completed calls, but does not reproduce excessive CPU use.
- No relevant Munin listener helper was found; the listener comes from `Net::Server::Fork`. `CONTRIBUTING.md` points to `HACKING.pod`, which directs bug-fix patches to `stable-2.0`. No patch was prepared, so no base-branch choice applies.

## Review Pass 3

RESULT: ok

The round-2 response addresses the prior finding: it gives timings only for the two completed `pselect6` calls and notes the third is truncated. The diagnosis remains appropriately cautious (`inferred`), reports the unavailable live reproduction and build blocker, and the workspace contains no source diff.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Codex suba

[truncated 27431 bytes]

Response

## Plan Pass

The completed plan remains **inferred**: the trace is consistent with an idle listener wait, and it does not establish a Munin defect. No files were changed. One scout could not confirm the exact inherited wait from the workspace source; the other identified a 2-second readiness wait in the installed `Net::Server::Fork`, so treat that as supporting context rather than proof of live CPU behavior.

## Patch Pass

Thanks—the independent source review agrees that no Munin source patch is justified. The trace’s two-second waits are consistent with the installed `Net::Server::Fork` listener, while Munin’s plugin-output read also blocks; the original process was unavailable for a live reproduction.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: fix-needed

## Findings
- There is no reviewable patch: `git diff` is empty and the workspace is clean. `patch-output.txt` contains only a short diagnosis, not the required patch/report sections. Regenerate the author response with explicit `## Evidence Confidence` and `## Validation`; with no source change justified, `## Git Add Paths` should be `None`.
- Keep the diagnosis cautious: the evidence shows a sleeping process and `pselect6` calls timing out after roughly two seconds. That matches the installed `Net::Server::Fork` listener’s readiness wait, but does not prove the process was consuming excessive CPU or justify a Munin source change.
- The project guidance was checked: `CONTRIBUTING.md` points to `HACKING.pod`, which says bug-fix patches target `stable-2.0`; no patch was prepared, so no base-branch choice or local helper use applies.

## Refinement Pass 1

Subject: Diagnose munin-node idle polling evidence

## Commit Message
No source patch. The captured `pselect6` calls wait about two seconds and time out while the process is sleeping, which is consistent with the installed `Net::Server::Fork` listener’s readiness wait. The evidence does not establish a Munin defect.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
Fixer’s trace shows three `pselect6` calls, each waiting about two seconds, and `/proc` reported the process sleeping. The kernel stack shows time in `poll_schedule_timeout`; the `perf_ctx_enable` sample attribution does not establish high userspace CPU use. Munin’s entrypoint delegates its listener to `Net::Server::Fork`, whose installed implementation uses a two-second readiness wait. That is a plausible explanation for the trace, not proof of excessive CPU consumption. No source change is justified, so there is no expected code-change effect.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` from the workspace root failed because `Module::Build` is missing: `Can't locate Module/Build.pm`.
- `make check` is unavailable; the workspace `Makefile` has no `check` target.
- `perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node` passed (`syntax OK`).
- The bounded live reproduction could not run: evidence PID `3947104` is unavailable in this environment. The installed `Net::Server::Fork` source’s two-second wait matches the trace, but does not reproduce excessive CPU use.
- No relevant Munin listener helper was found; the listener comes from `Net::Server::Fork`. `CONTRIBUTING.md` points to `HACKING.pod`, which directs bug-fix patches to `stable-2.0`. No patch was prepared, so there is no base-branch choice to report.

## Review Pass 2

RESULT: fix-needed

## Findings
- In `## Issue Connection`, correct “three `pselect6` calls, each waiting about two seconds.” The evidence has only two completed calls, taking 1.815530s and 2.002044s; the third call is truncated before its result. State those measured timings and note that the third result is unavailable. The rest of the no-patch diagnosis, confidence classification, and validation report are consistent with the evidence.

## Refinement Pass 2

Subject: Diagnose munin-node idle polling evidence

## Commit Message
No source patch. Two completed `pselect6` calls waited 1.815530 seconds and 2.002044 seconds before timing out while the process was reported sleeping. This is consistent with the installed `Net::Server::Fork` listener’s readiness wait, but does not establish a Munin defect.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
Fixer’s trace contains two completed `pselect6` calls, taking 1.815530 seconds and 2.002044 seconds; a third call is truncated before its result. `/proc` reported the process sleeping, and the kernel stack shows time in `poll_schedule_timeout`. The `perf_ctx_enable` sample attribution does not establish high userspace CPU use. Munin delegates its listener to `Net::Server::Fork`, whose installed implementation uses a two-second readiness wait. That is a plausible explanation for the measured calls, not proof of excessive CPU consumption. No source change is justified.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` from the workspace root failed because `Module::Build` is missing: `Can't locate Module/Build.pm`.
- `make check` is unavailable; the workspace `Makefile` has no `check` target.
- `perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node` passed (`syntax OK`).
- The bounded live reproduction could not run: evidence PID `3947104` is unavailable in this environment. The installed `Net::Server::Fork` source’s two-second wait matches the two completed calls, but does not reproduce excessive CPU use.
- No relevant Munin listener helper was found; the listener comes from `Net::Server::Fork`. `CONTRIBUTING.md` points to `HACKING.pod`, which directs bug-fix patches to `stable-2.0`. No patch was prepared, so no base-branch choice applies.

## Review Pass 3

RESULT: ok

The round-2 response addresses the prior finding: it gives timings only for the two completed `pselect6` calls and notes the third is truncated. The diagnosis remains appropriately cautious (`inferred`), reports the unavailable live reproduction and build blocker, and the workspace contains no source diff.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Codex suba

[truncated 3140 bytes]

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem
Fixer flags `munin-node` as a likely busy poll, but the evidence shows three `pselect6` calls waiting about 1.8–2 seconds and returning on timeout. The process was sleeping in `poll_schedule_timeout`. Source inspection found no confirmed application-level busy loop.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

The evidence is profiler-only and does not tie CPU use to Munin code. `script/munin-node` hands the server loop to `Net::Server::Fork`; inspected Munin waits are blocking. No prior Fixer patch was found to improve or replace.

## Proposed Subject
No source patch; report that the busy-poll finding is unconfirmed and request a Perl-level stack or reproducible workload before proposing a code change.

## Patch Plan
Do not edit source. The evidence does not justify changing the daemon or Perl runtime. Follow `HACKING.pod`’s strict/warnings and existing style if later evidence supports a patch; relevant local helpers include `Munin::Common::Timeout` and `Munin::Node::OS`. No Munin event-loop wrapper relevant to the captured wait was found. For a confirmed bug fix, `HACKING.pod` explicitly directs contributors to base core bug-fix patches on `stable-2.0`; no branch change is needed for this no-patch report.

## Risks
Changing normal blocking waits based on this trace could introduce unnecessary CPU use or alter server behavior. Avoid speculative control-flow changes, including `goto`; there is no bounded source fix to propose.

## Validation
From the workspace root, try `make` first, then `make test`; the Makefile exposes `test`, not `check`. For a bounded independent check of the captured signal, if PID `3947104` is still available, attempt `timeout 5s strace -tt -e trace=pselect6 -p 3947104`; this may fail if the original process is gone or inaccessible. It would not establish a Munin bug by itself. No focused leaf compile is planned without a source patch.

## Patch Pass

Subject: Diagnose unconfirmed munin-node busy-poll signal

## Commit Message
No source changes. The collected evidence points to a mismatch between the “busy-poll” classification and the observed process state: samples were attributed to kernel `perf_ctx_enable`, while `/proc` reported the process sleeping and `pselect6` calls waited roughly two seconds before timing out. Munin’s entrypoint delegates to `Net::Server::Fork`; the inspected Munin wait paths block rather than spin. The evidence does not establish an application or Perl runtime bug, so a source patch would be speculative.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
The reported signal is a likely high-CPU Perl `munin-node`, with 100% of sampled CPU attributed to kernel `perf_ctx_enable`. However, the captured process was sleeping in `poll_schedule_timeout`, and its `pselect6` calls waited about 1.8–2 seconds; this does not demonstrate a tight polling loop. `script/munin-node` delegates serving to `Net::Server::Fork`, and inspected Munin waits are blocking. I made no code change because the evidence does not identify a faulty code path. The diagnosis is that the busy-poll finding remains unconfirmed; a Perl-level stack or reproducible workload is needed before proposing a fix.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` failed because `Build.PL` could not find `Module::Build`.
- `make test` failed for the same missing dependency. The Makefile defines `test`; it has no `check` target.
- `perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node` passed (`syntax OK`).
- The independent trace attempt, `timeout 5s strace -tt -e trace=pselect6 -p 3947104`, was blocked by `ptrace(PTRACE_SEIZE): Operation not permitted`; `ps` also found no process with that PID. The failure could not be independently reproduced.
- No files were modified. Local guidance in `HACKING.pod` directs core bug-fix patches to `stable-2.0`; it also calls for `strict`/`warnings`. No relevant Munin event-loop wrapper was found.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: ok

The workspace has no source diff. The diagnosis appropriately keeps confidence `inferred`: the captured `pselect6` waits and sleeping process state do not establish a Munin busy loop, and the independent trace attempt was blocked. The report also names the build blocker, available test target, and relevant upstream guidance. No actionable review findings.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis. PostgreSQL database-core source changes touching dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes require reproduced evidence plus explicit semantic-impact analysis. Otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Codex suba

[truncated 3140 bytes]

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem
Fixer flags `munin-node` as a likely busy poll, but the evidence shows three `pselect6` calls waiting about 1.8–2 seconds and returning on timeout. The process was sleeping in `poll_schedule_timeout`. Source inspection found no confirmed application-level busy loop.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

The evidence is profiler-only and does not tie CPU use to Munin code. `script/munin-node` hands the server loop to `Net::Server::Fork`; inspected Munin waits are blocking. No prior Fixer patch was found to improve or replace.

## Proposed Subject
No source patch; report that the busy-poll finding is unconfirmed and request a Perl-level stack or reproducible workload before proposing a code change.

## Patch Plan
Do not edit source. The evidence does not justify changing the daemon or Perl runtime. Follow `HACKING.pod`’s strict/warnings and existing style if later evidence supports a patch; relevant local helpers include `Munin::Common::Timeout` and `Munin::Node::OS`. No Munin event-loop wrapper relevant to the captured wait was found. For a confirmed bug fix, `HACKING.pod` explicitly directs contributors to base core bug-fix patches on `stable-2.0`; no branch change is needed for this no-patch report.

## Risks
Changing normal blocking waits based on this trace could introduce unnecessary CPU use or alter server behavior. Avoid speculative control-flow changes, including `goto`; there is no bounded source fix to propose.

## Validation
From the workspace root, try `make` first, then `make test`; the Makefile exposes `test`, not `check`. For a bounded independent check of the captured signal, if PID `3947104` is still available, attempt `timeout 5s strace -tt -e trace=pselect6 -p 3947104`; this may fail if the original process is gone or inaccessible. It would not establish a Munin bug by itself. No focused leaf compile is planned without a source patch.

## Patch Pass

Subject: Diagnose unconfirmed munin-node busy-poll signal

## Commit Message
No source changes. The collected evidence points to a mismatch between the “busy-poll” classification and the observed process state: samples were attributed to kernel `perf_ctx_enable`, while `/proc` reported the process sleeping and `pselect6` calls waited roughly two seconds before timing out. Munin’s entrypoint delegates to `Net::Server::Fork`; the inspected Munin wait paths block rather than spin. The evidence does not establish an application or Perl runtime bug, so a source patch would be speculative.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
The reported signal is a likely high-CPU Perl `munin-node`, with 100% of sampled CPU attributed to kernel `perf_ctx_enable`. However, the captured process was sleeping in `poll_schedule_timeout`, and its `pselect6` calls waited about 1.8–2 seconds; this does not demonstrate a tight polling loop. `script/munin-node` delegates serving to `Net::Server::Fork`, and inspected Munin waits are blocking. I made no code change because the evidence does not identify a faulty code path. The diagnosis is that the busy-poll finding remains unconfirmed; a Perl-level stack or reproducible workload is needed before proposing a fix.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
- `make` failed because `Build.PL` could not find `Module::Build`.
- `make test` failed for the same missing dependency. The Makefile defines `test`; it has no `check` target.
- `perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node` passed (`syntax OK`).
- The independent trace attempt, `timeout 5s strace -tt -e trace=pselect6 -p 3947104`, was blocked by `ptrace(PTRACE_SEIZE): Operation not permitted`; `ps` also found no process with that PID. The failure could not be independently reproduced.
- No files were modified. Local guidance in `HACKING.pod` directs core bug-fix patches to `stable-2.0`; it also calls for `strict`/`warnings`. No relevant Munin event-loop wrapper was found.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: ok

The workspace has no source diff. The diagnosis appropriately keeps confidence `inferred`: the captured `pselect6` waits and sleeping process state do not establish a Munin busy loop, and the independent trace attempt was blocked. The report also names the build blocker, available test target, and relevant upstream guidance. No actionable review findings.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.6-luna`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

Response

## Plan Pass



## Workflow Note

model: gpt-5.6-luna

{"type":"thread.started","thread_id":"01a0c0d3-54bf-7870-bd40-b2c16f926b46"}
{"type":"turn.started"}
{"type":"error","message":"exceeded retry limit, last status: 429 Too Many Requests, request id: 6ce4ae97-c528-4a5b-a232-dc5650e2d8ca"}
{"type":"turn.failed","error":{"message":"exceeded retry limit, last status: 429 Too Many Requests, request id: 6ce4ae97-c528-4a5b-a232-dc5650e2d8ca"}}

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.5`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

Response

## Plan Pass



## Workflow Note

model: gpt-5.5

{"type":"thread.started","thread_id":"01a0c099-ca85-7fb2-8eee-0aa3657fabc2"}
{"type":"turn.started"}
{"type":"error","message":"exceeded retry limit, last status: 429 Too Many Requests, request id: b4076128-7650-40d1-8bf8-d50c1c3cae67"}
{"type":"turn.failed","error":{"message":"exceeded retry limit, last status: 429 Too Many Requests, request id: b4076128-7650-40d1-8bf8-d50c1c3cae67"}}

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.5`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

Response

## Plan Pass



## Workflow Note

model: gpt-5.5

{"type":"thread.started","thread_id":"01a0c04e-da9c-79a2-ba88-2a40823acc5e"}
{"type":"turn.started"}
{"type":"error","message":"exceeded retry limit, last status: 429 Too Many Requests, request id: 0960b220-6b2e-4596-84fe-e2a3330935b2"}
{"type":"turn.failed","error":{"message":"exceeded retry limit, last status: 429 Too Many Requests, request id: 0960b220-6b2e-4596-84fe-e2a3330935b2"}}

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.5`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

Response

## Plan Pass



## Workflow Note

model: gpt-5.5

{"type":"thread.started","thread_id":"01a0c011-da50-7210-be39-6958836e2c18"}
{"type":"turn.started"}
{"type":"error","message":"exceeded retry limit, last status: 429 Too Many Requests, request id: 89ced2f8-8dfb-43e7-9841-db03af510c6c"}
{"type":"turn.failed","error":{"message":"exceeded retry limit, last status: 429 Too Many Requests, request id: 89ced2f8-8dfb-43e7-9841-db03af510c6c"}}

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. For public upstream review, prepare the final patch against the upstream default integration branch, usually `master` or `main`; use installed or stable source trees for reproduction/backport validation, not as the default merge-request base unless the contribution docs explicitly say to target a stable branch. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, branch-base choice, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Codex subagent/fan-out expectation: for any non-trivial investigation, do not keep all checking in the lead context. Proactively spawn bounded leaf subagents for independent source inspection, duplicate/upstream search, implementation sanity checks, and verification while the lead owns integration. Use the newest available mini model for read-only scouts, and use `gpt-5.3-codex-spark` aggressively for tiny coding, test, and verification leaves even when the lead model is `gpt-5.5`. Pass model names explicitly when spawning. Keep subagents as leaves: tell them not to spawn their own agents, not to run recursive `codex review`, not to perform public/external/destructive actions, and not to duplicate the same live-state operation. Merge their evidence into the final patch/report instead of merely saying a subagent looked. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, timing/throttling behavior, or PostgreSQL database-core behavior such as dynamic library resolution, extension loading, transaction semantics, locking, planner/executor behavior, catalog changes, or storage changes, treat it as high-risk: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the semantic impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

Response

## Plan Pass



## Workflow Note

model: gpt-5.5

{"type":"thread.started","thread_id":"01a0bfd7-8d06-7712-b616-cdd17b0036e9"}
{"type":"turn.started"}
{"type":"error","message":"exceeded retry limit, last status: 429 Too Many Requests, request id: 9e586863-ae86-420c-a33e-c87900cdf014"}
{"type":"turn.failed","error":{"message":"exceeded retry limit, last status: 429 Too Many Requests, request id: 9e586863-ae86-420c-a33e-c87900cdf014"}}

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior, treat it as security-sensitive: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the security impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis; otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout. The latest author response is at `./patch-output.txt`. Inspect the current code and changed paths like a strict code reviewer. Focus on correctness, regressions, maintainability, awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto`, missing validation, weak or non-gittable commit message text, and explanations that fail to connect the observed issue evidence to the code change. Also review the maintainer experience: the patch mail should be easy to accept upstream, the user-visible bug should be explained in plain language, subsystem-specific jargon should be defined when first used, and any non-obvious state translation or index remapping in code should have a short explanatory comment. Reject patches that omit `## Evidence Confidence`, use anything other than `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`, or sound more certain than that evidence level allows. Reject patches that claim `reproduced` unless `## Validation` names the concrete reproduction command or test and its result. Reject source patches in security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior unless the author reproduced the behavior and explicitly analyzed the security impact of the change; observed-only evidence should become a diagnosis/report, not a PR-ready source diff. Reject patches that invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure not present in the evidence bundle; indirect profiler or strace evidence may justify a cautious mitigation, but the author must say it is indirect instead of presenting it as a confirmed upstream bug. Reject patches that introduce generic libc/std APIs when nearby code or project docs provide a local compat/helper API for the same job, unless the author explicitly justifies the exception. Reject validation that only reports a leaf object/syntax build when a project-level configure/build/test entrypoint exists and was not attempted; if a full build cannot run, the author must show the exact failed command and blocker.

Do not apply code changes in this pass.

Return a short markdown review report. The first non-empty line must be exactly one of:

RESULT: ok
RESULT: fix-needed

If you choose `RESULT: fix-needed`, add a `## Findings` section with concrete, actionable items.

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem
Fixer observed `munin-node` running as `/usr/bin/perl -wT /usr/sbin/munin-node --foreground` in repeated `pselect6` calls. The retained evidence does not tie the wakeups to a Perl-level stack or Munin source line, and the syscall excerpts show blocking waits of about 1.8-2.0 seconds with the process sleeping and only 0.9% CPU, which does not substantiate a tight runaway CPU loop.

## Evidence Confidence
observed

## Proposed Subject
No source patch in this pass: report the evidence gap and collect a bounded Munin-level reproduction before editing.

## Patch Plan
Do not patch Perl or Munin yet. The evidence identifies the script entrypoint, but it lacks a language-level stack and appears to show normal blocking `pselect6` timeouts rather than a confirmed busy loop.

Use Munin’s local conventions from `CONTRIBUTING.md` and `HACKING.pod`: strict/warnings Perl style, taint-aware invocation, existing module style, and project test entrypoints. Relevant local helpers/conventions found: `Munin::Common::Timeout::do_with_timeout`, `Munin::Node::Server::_net_read`, `_net_write`, `Munin::Node::Config`, and Net::Server-based daemon setup. No prior Fixer patch was present beyond the baseline commit.

If additional evidence later shows real CPU churn in Munin code, plan a narrow upstream-style patch in `lib/Munin/Node/Server.pm` or the specific helper implicated by the Perl stack, following existing helper APIs and avoiding awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto`.

## Risks
A timing/throttling source change based only on this bundle would be speculative and could alter daemon responsiveness or connection handling without proving it fixes the observed workload.

The `pselect6` timeout cadence may come from Net::Server or normal idle daemon behavior, not from Munin application logic. Treating it as a bug now risks replacing expected blocking behavior with an unnecessary workaround.

## Validation
Before any future patch, try the project-level entrypoint from the workspace root: `make`. There is no `make check` target in the inspected `Makefile`; the available project test target is `make test`.

For bounded independent reproduction, run a short foreground `munin-node` smoke under syscall tracing from a clean checkout after `make`, using the script entrypoint rather than Perl runtime internals, for example: `timeout 8s strace -ttT -f -e trace=pselect6,select,poll,ppoll,nanosleep,clock_nanosleep perl -Ilib -T script/munin-node --foreground --config t/config/munin-node.conf --servicedir plugins/node.d.debug --sconfdir t/config/plugin-conf.d`. Only claim reproduction if that command shows high-frequency nonblocking poll/select returns or measurable CPU churn tied to Munin. Otherwise validate the diagnosis with `perl -Ilib -c lib/Munin/Node/Server.pm` and report no patch.

## Patch Pass

Subject: Report inconclusive munin-node poll-loop evidence

## Commit Message
No source patch is included. Fixer observed `munin-node` under Perl in repeated `pselect6` samples, but the retained `/proc`, perf, and strace data point to a sleeping process in a timed select wait, not a locally reproduced CPU spin.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
The collected signal is `/usr/bin/perl -wT /usr/sbin/munin-node --foreground` sampled around `select()`/`pselect6`, with `wchan` at `poll_schedule_timeout` and strace lines returning after about 1.8-2.0 seconds. The likely root cause is normal idle or timer-driven waiting in the `munin-node` server loop, not a proven tight busy-poll loop.

I inspected the Perl entrypoint (`script/munin-node`) before considering the runtime, as well as `lib/Munin/Node/Server.pm` and `Munin::Common::Timeout::do_with_timeout`. The relevant local helpers are `_net_read`, `_net_write`, `do_with_timeout`, `Munin::Common::Logger`, and the Net::Server hook structure. Munin’s contribution docs require strict/warnings Perl style and taint-aware invocation.

Following the saved plan, I did not make a source change. Any plausible patch here would alter daemon timing/throttling behavior without reproduced evidence or a Perl-level stack tying the observed wait to faulty Munin logic. The expected effect of this no-patch diagnosis is to avoid an upstream patch that changes connection timing based on an inconclusive profiler signal.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
Project-level validation attempted from the workspace root:

`make`

Failed before building Munin code because `Module::Build` is missing:

`Can't locate Module/Build.pm in @INC ... at Build.PL line 80.`
`make: *** [Makefile:149: Build] Error 2`

There is no `make check` target in the inspected `Makefile`.

Focused checks run:

`perl -Ilib -c lib/Munin/Node/Server.pm` passed: syntax OK.

`perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node` passed: syntax OK.

Independent reproduction attempt:

`timeout 8s strace -ttT -f -e trace=pselect6,select,poll,ppoll,nanosleep,clock_nanosleep perl -Ilib -T script/munin-node ...`

Blocked by sandbox ptrace restrictions: `PTRACE_TRACEME: Operation not permitted` and `ptrace(PTRACE_SEIZE, 5): Operation not permitted`.

Fallback foreground smoke with absolute paths exited with status `1` and no stdout/stderr, so it did not reproduce a long-running poll loop or CPU churn.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: ok

No source changes are present in the workspace, so there is no code diff to reject. The no-patch diagnosis is consistent with the evidence limits: the bundle is profiler/strace-driven, the process was sleeping in `poll_schedule_timeout`, and no local reproduction tied the signal to faulty Munin code.

The author checked contribution docs and named relevant Munin helpers (`do_with_timeout`, `_net_read`, `_net_write`, logging, Net::Server hooks). Validation attempted the project-level `make` first, reported the `Module::Build` blocker, then ran focused syntax checks and documented the ptrace blocker for the independent strace reproduction.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior, treat it as security-sensitive: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the security impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis; otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout. The latest author response is at `./patch-output.txt`. Inspect the current code and changed paths like a strict code reviewer. Focus on correctness, regressions, maintainability, awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto`, missing validation, weak or non-gittable commit message text, and explanations that fail to connect the observed issue evidence to the code change. Also review the maintainer experience: the patch mail should be easy to accept upstream, the user-visible bug should be explained in plain language, subsystem-specific jargon should be defined when first used, and any non-obvious state translation or index remapping in code should have a short explanatory comment. Reject patches that omit `## Evidence Confidence`, use anything other than `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`, or sound more certain than that evidence level allows. Reject patches that claim `reproduced` unless `## Validation` names the concrete reproduction command or test and its result. Reject source patches in security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior unless the author reproduced the behavior and explicitly analyzed the security impact of the change; observed-only evidence should become a diagnosis/report, not a PR-ready source diff. Reject patches that invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure not present in the evidence bundle; indirect profiler or strace evidence may justify a cautious mitigation, but the author must say it is indirect instead of presenting it as a confirmed upstream bug. Reject patches that introduce generic libc/std APIs when nearby code or project docs provide a local compat/helper API for the same job, unless the author explicitly justifies the exception. Reject validation that only reports a leaf object/syntax build when a project-level configure/build/test entrypoint exists and was not attempted; if a full build cannot run, the author must show the exact failed command and blocker.

Do not apply code changes in this pass.

Return a short markdown review report. The first non-empty line must be exactly one of:

RESULT: ok
RESULT: fix-needed

If you choose `RESULT: fix-needed`, add a `## Findings` section with concrete, actionable items.

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem
Fixer observed `munin-node` running as `/usr/bin/perl -wT /usr/sbin/munin-node --foreground` in repeated `pselect6` calls. The retained evidence does not tie the wakeups to a Perl-level stack or Munin source line, and the syscall excerpts show blocking waits of about 1.8-2.0 seconds with the process sleeping and only 0.9% CPU, which does not substantiate a tight runaway CPU loop.

## Evidence Confidence
observed

## Proposed Subject
No source patch in this pass: report the evidence gap and collect a bounded Munin-level reproduction before editing.

## Patch Plan
Do not patch Perl or Munin yet. The evidence identifies the script entrypoint, but it lacks a language-level stack and appears to show normal blocking `pselect6` timeouts rather than a confirmed busy loop.

Use Munin’s local conventions from `CONTRIBUTING.md` and `HACKING.pod`: strict/warnings Perl style, taint-aware invocation, existing module style, and project test entrypoints. Relevant local helpers/conventions found: `Munin::Common::Timeout::do_with_timeout`, `Munin::Node::Server::_net_read`, `_net_write`, `Munin::Node::Config`, and Net::Server-based daemon setup. No prior Fixer patch was present beyond the baseline commit.

If additional evidence later shows real CPU churn in Munin code, plan a narrow upstream-style patch in `lib/Munin/Node/Server.pm` or the specific helper implicated by the Perl stack, following existing helper APIs and avoiding awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto`.

## Risks
A timing/throttling source change based only on this bundle would be speculative and could alter daemon responsiveness or connection handling without proving it fixes the observed workload.

The `pselect6` timeout cadence may come from Net::Server or normal idle daemon behavior, not from Munin application logic. Treating it as a bug now risks replacing expected blocking behavior with an unnecessary workaround.

## Validation
Before any future patch, try the project-level entrypoint from the workspace root: `make`. There is no `make check` target in the inspected `Makefile`; the available project test target is `make test`.

For bounded independent reproduction, run a short foreground `munin-node` smoke under syscall tracing from a clean checkout after `make`, using the script entrypoint rather than Perl runtime internals, for example: `timeout 8s strace -ttT -f -e trace=pselect6,select,poll,ppoll,nanosleep,clock_nanosleep perl -Ilib -T script/munin-node --foreground --config t/config/munin-node.conf --servicedir plugins/node.d.debug --sconfdir t/config/plugin-conf.d`. Only claim reproduction if that command shows high-frequency nonblocking poll/select returns or measurable CPU churn tied to Munin. Otherwise validate the diagnosis with `perl -Ilib -c lib/Munin/Node/Server.pm` and report no patch.

## Patch Pass

Subject: Report inconclusive munin-node poll-loop evidence

## Commit Message
No source patch is included. Fixer observed `munin-node` under Perl in repeated `pselect6` samples, but the retained `/proc`, perf, and strace data point to a sleeping process in a timed select wait, not a locally reproduced CPU spin.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
The collected signal is `/usr/bin/perl -wT /usr/sbin/munin-node --foreground` sampled around `select()`/`pselect6`, with `wchan` at `poll_schedule_timeout` and strace lines returning after about 1.8-2.0 seconds. The likely root cause is normal idle or timer-driven waiting in the `munin-node` server loop, not a proven tight busy-poll loop.

I inspected the Perl entrypoint (`script/munin-node`) before considering the runtime, as well as `lib/Munin/Node/Server.pm` and `Munin::Common::Timeout::do_with_timeout`. The relevant local helpers are `_net_read`, `_net_write`, `do_with_timeout`, `Munin::Common::Logger`, and the Net::Server hook structure. Munin’s contribution docs require strict/warnings Perl style and taint-aware invocation.

Following the saved plan, I did not make a source change. Any plausible patch here would alter daemon timing/throttling behavior without reproduced evidence or a Perl-level stack tying the observed wait to faulty Munin logic. The expected effect of this no-patch diagnosis is to avoid an upstream patch that changes connection timing based on an inconclusive profiler signal.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
Project-level validation attempted from the workspace root:

`make`

Failed before building Munin code because `Module::Build` is missing:

`Can't locate Module/Build.pm in @INC ... at Build.PL line 80.`
`make: *** [Makefile:149: Build] Error 2`

There is no `make check` target in the inspected `Makefile`.

Focused checks run:

`perl -Ilib -c lib/Munin/Node/Server.pm` passed: syntax OK.

`perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node` passed: syntax OK.

Independent reproduction attempt:

`timeout 8s strace -ttT -f -e trace=pselect6,select,poll,ppoll,nanosleep,clock_nanosleep perl -Ilib -T script/munin-node ...`

Blocked by sandbox ptrace restrictions: `PTRACE_TRACEME: Operation not permitted` and `ptrace(PTRACE_SEIZE, 5): Operation not permitted`.

Fallback foreground smoke with absolute paths exited with status `1` and no stdout/stderr, so it did not reproduce a long-running poll loop or CPU churn.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: ok

No source changes are present in the workspace, so there is no code diff to reject. The no-patch diagnosis is consistent with the evidence limits: the bundle is profiler/strace-driven, the process was sleeping in `poll_schedule_timeout`, and no local reproduction tied the signal to faulty Munin code.

The author checked contribution docs and named relevant Munin helpers (`do_with_timeout`, `_net_read`, `_net_write`, logging, Net::Server hooks). Validation attempted the project-level `make` first, reported the `Module::Build` blocker, then ran focused syntax checks and documented the ptrace blocker for the independent strace reproduction.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior, treat it as security-sensitive: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the security impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis; otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout. The latest author response is at `./patch-output.txt`. Inspect the current code and changed paths like a strict code reviewer. Focus on correctness, regressions, maintainability, awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto`, missing validation, weak or non-gittable commit message text, and explanations that fail to connect the observed issue evidence to the code change. Also review the maintainer experience: the patch mail should be easy to accept upstream, the user-visible bug should be explained in plain language, subsystem-specific jargon should be defined when first used, and any non-obvious state translation or index remapping in code should have a short explanatory comment. Reject patches that omit `## Evidence Confidence`, use anything other than `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`, or sound more certain than that evidence level allows. Reject patches that claim `reproduced` unless `## Validation` names the concrete reproduction command or test and its result. Reject source patches in security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior unless the author reproduced the behavior and explicitly analyzed the security impact of the change; observed-only evidence should become a diagnosis/report, not a PR-ready source diff. Reject patches that invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure not present in the evidence bundle; indirect profiler or strace evidence may justify a cautious mitigation, but the author must say it is indirect instead of presenting it as a confirmed upstream bug. Reject patches that introduce generic libc/std APIs when nearby code or project docs provide a local compat/helper API for the same job, unless the author explicitly justifies the exception. Reject validation that only reports a leaf object/syntax build when a project-level configure/build/test entrypoint exists and was not attempted; if a full build cannot run, the author must show the exact failed command and blocker.

Do not apply code changes in this pass.

Return a short markdown review report. The first non-empty line must be exactly one of:

RESULT: ok
RESULT: fix-needed

If you choose `RESULT: fix-needed`, add a `## Findings` section with concrete, actionable items.

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem
Fixer observed `/usr/sbin/munin-node --foreground` running under Perl with repeated `pselect6` samples. The retained evidence does not include a Perl-level stack or script line, and the strace excerpt shows blocking timeouts of about 1.8-2.0 seconds with process state `S (sleeping)`, not a proven tight spin.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Proposed Subject
No source patch yet: report/diagnose the munin-node idle `select()` signal and collect stronger application-level evidence before editing.

## Patch Plan
Do not patch Munin in this pass. The evidence points at the `munin-node` entrypoint and `Munin::Node::Server`, which subclasses `Net::Server::Fork`; an idle daemon waiting in `select()` is expected server-loop behavior unless we can show near-zero timeout wakeups or CPU burn tied to Munin code.

If a later reproduction shows real busy wakeups, inspect `Munin::Node::Server->run`, Net::Server configuration passed from `script/munin-node`, and plugin child handling through `Munin::Node::Service->fork_service` and `Munin::Node::OS->run_as_child`. Follow local conventions from `CONTRIBUTING.md`/`HACKING.pod`: taint-mode-compatible Perl, `use strict; use warnings;`, file-local indentation style, no avoidable `goto`, and existing helpers such as `Munin::Common::Timeout`, `Munin::Common::Daemon::emit_sd_notify_message`, `Munin::Node::OS`, and `Munin::Common::Logger`.

No prior Fixer patch is present in this workspace, and the existing Debian patches are unrelated.

## Risks
Patching based only on the current profile could turn normal idle accept-loop behavior into a regression. The sampled CPU was low (`max_cpu_percent` 0.9), and the captured `pselect6` calls blocked for seconds, so a mitigation patch would be speculative without additional evidence.

## Validation
Before any future source edit, try the project-level entrypoint from the workspace root: `make`, then `make check` only if that target exists. This project exposes `make test` via `./Build test`, while `make check` is not defined in the inspected `Makefile`.

For bounded independent reproduction, run `munin-node --foreground` with a minimal temporary config/service directory and trace it briefly with `strace -ttT -f -e trace=pselect6,select,poll,ppoll,epoll_wait,nanosleep,clock_nanosleep`. A patch should only proceed if this captures repeated nonblocking or near-zero-timeout wakeups with meaningful CPU use, ideally with a Perl-level stack tying the loop to `Munin::Node::Server` or related Munin code.

## Patch Pass

Subject: No patch: diagnose munin-node select profile

## Commit Message
No source change is left for this proposal. The collected signal shows `munin-node` under Perl sleeping in `pselect6`, but the retained trace does not tie the wait loop to a Munin source line or show a nonblocking spin. A source patch would be speculative without a reproducible busy wakeup or a Perl-level stack.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
Fixer collected a perf/strace signal from `/usr/bin/perl -wT /usr/sbin/munin-node --foreground`: native frames reached `select()`, the dominant syscall was `pselect6`, and `/proc` reported the process as `S (sleeping)`. The strace excerpt shows `pselect6` timing out after about 1.8-2.0 seconds, while the sampled process CPU was only 0.9%.

The cautious code-level inference is that this is likely the `munin-node` daemon’s normal idle server loop, not a confirmed runaway loop. The application entrypoint `script/munin-node` delegates serving to `Munin::Node::Server`, which subclasses `Net::Server::Fork`; plugin execution uses local helpers `Munin::Common::Timeout` and `Munin::Node::OS->run_as_child`. I also checked the Perl runtime only as the second target: the native backtrace contains Perl runtime frames, but no evidence shows Perl mishandling this workload.

I made no source change. This follows the saved plan rather than drifting from it: the evidence is profiler/syscall-level only, and the local reproduction attempts could not establish a busy loop. The expected effect of this no-patch disposition is to avoid landing an upstream change for behavior that currently looks like normal blocking accept-loop activity.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
`make` from the workspace root failed before building because `Module::Build` is missing:
`Can't locate Module/Build.pm in @INC ... at Build.PL line 80.`

`make -n check` failed because there is no `check` target:
`make: *** No rule to make target 'check'. Stop.`

Narrow checks run after the build blocker:
`perl -c lib/Munin/Common/Timeout.pm && perl -c lib/Munin/Node/OS.pm && perl -c lib/Munin/Node/Service.pm && perl -c lib/Munin/Node/Server.pm`
All reported syntax OK, with existing `Munin::Node::OS.pm` redefinition warnings during compilation.

Independent reproduction attempt:
`timeout 6 strace -ttT -f -e trace=pselect6,select,poll,ppoll,epoll_wait,nanosleep,clock_nanosleep /usr/bin/munin-node --foreground`
Blocked by ptrace restrictions: `PTRACE_TRACEME: Operation not permitted`.

Fallback smoke attempt with a temporary config also could not reproduce the signal because the sandbox denied binding a TCP port:
`Cannot bind and listen to TCP port 4959 on 127.0.0.1 [Operation not permitted]`.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: ok

No source diff is present against the original snapshot, and `Git Add Paths` correctly lists `None`.

The author’s no-patch diagnosis is consistent with the evidence level: the bundle contains indirect profiler/syscall evidence, low sampled CPU, sleeping process state, and `pselect6` calls that block for about two seconds. The response does not overclaim reproduction, uses `inferred`, and explains why a source patch would be speculative.

Validation is acceptable for a no-patch pass: `make` was attempted and the missing `Module::Build` blocker is reported, `make check` was checked and found absent, focused Perl syntax checks were run, and the independent strace/smoke reproduction blockers are stated clearly.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior, treat it as security-sensitive: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the security impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis; otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout. The latest author response is at `./patch-output.txt`. Inspect the current code and changed paths like a strict code reviewer. Focus on correctness, regressions, maintainability, awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto`, missing validation, weak or non-gittable commit message text, and explanations that fail to connect the observed issue evidence to the code change. Also review the maintainer experience: the patch mail should be easy to accept upstream, the user-visible bug should be explained in plain language, subsystem-specific jargon should be defined when first used, and any non-obvious state translation or index remapping in code should have a short explanatory comment. Reject patches that omit `## Evidence Confidence`, use anything other than `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`, or sound more certain than that evidence level allows. Reject patches that claim `reproduced` unless `## Validation` names the concrete reproduction command or test and its result. Reject source patches in security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior unless the author reproduced the behavior and explicitly analyzed the security impact of the change; observed-only evidence should become a diagnosis/report, not a PR-ready source diff. Reject patches that invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure not present in the evidence bundle; indirect profiler or strace evidence may justify a cautious mitigation, but the author must say it is indirect instead of presenting it as a confirmed upstream bug. Reject patches that introduce generic libc/std APIs when nearby code or project docs provide a local compat/helper API for the same job, unless the author explicitly justifies the exception. Reject validation that only reports a leaf object/syntax build when a project-level configure/build/test entrypoint exists and was not attempted; if a full build cannot run, the author must show the exact failed command and blocker.

Do not apply code changes in this pass.

Return a short markdown review report. The first non-empty line must be exactly one of:

RESULT: ok
RESULT: fix-needed

If you choose `RESULT: fix-needed`, add a `## Findings` section with concrete, actionable items.

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem
Fixer observed `/usr/sbin/munin-node --foreground` running under Perl with repeated `pselect6` samples. The retained evidence does not include a Perl-level stack or script line, and the strace excerpt shows blocking timeouts of about 1.8-2.0 seconds with process state `S (sleeping)`, not a proven tight spin.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Proposed Subject
No source patch yet: report/diagnose the munin-node idle `select()` signal and collect stronger application-level evidence before editing.

## Patch Plan
Do not patch Munin in this pass. The evidence points at the `munin-node` entrypoint and `Munin::Node::Server`, which subclasses `Net::Server::Fork`; an idle daemon waiting in `select()` is expected server-loop behavior unless we can show near-zero timeout wakeups or CPU burn tied to Munin code.

If a later reproduction shows real busy wakeups, inspect `Munin::Node::Server->run`, Net::Server configuration passed from `script/munin-node`, and plugin child handling through `Munin::Node::Service->fork_service` and `Munin::Node::OS->run_as_child`. Follow local conventions from `CONTRIBUTING.md`/`HACKING.pod`: taint-mode-compatible Perl, `use strict; use warnings;`, file-local indentation style, no avoidable `goto`, and existing helpers such as `Munin::Common::Timeout`, `Munin::Common::Daemon::emit_sd_notify_message`, `Munin::Node::OS`, and `Munin::Common::Logger`.

No prior Fixer patch is present in this workspace, and the existing Debian patches are unrelated.

## Risks
Patching based only on the current profile could turn normal idle accept-loop behavior into a regression. The sampled CPU was low (`max_cpu_percent` 0.9), and the captured `pselect6` calls blocked for seconds, so a mitigation patch would be speculative without additional evidence.

## Validation
Before any future source edit, try the project-level entrypoint from the workspace root: `make`, then `make check` only if that target exists. This project exposes `make test` via `./Build test`, while `make check` is not defined in the inspected `Makefile`.

For bounded independent reproduction, run `munin-node --foreground` with a minimal temporary config/service directory and trace it briefly with `strace -ttT -f -e trace=pselect6,select,poll,ppoll,epoll_wait,nanosleep,clock_nanosleep`. A patch should only proceed if this captures repeated nonblocking or near-zero-timeout wakeups with meaningful CPU use, ideally with a Perl-level stack tying the loop to `Munin::Node::Server` or related Munin code.

## Patch Pass

Subject: No patch: diagnose munin-node select profile

## Commit Message
No source change is left for this proposal. The collected signal shows `munin-node` under Perl sleeping in `pselect6`, but the retained trace does not tie the wait loop to a Munin source line or show a nonblocking spin. A source patch would be speculative without a reproducible busy wakeup or a Perl-level stack.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
Fixer collected a perf/strace signal from `/usr/bin/perl -wT /usr/sbin/munin-node --foreground`: native frames reached `select()`, the dominant syscall was `pselect6`, and `/proc` reported the process as `S (sleeping)`. The strace excerpt shows `pselect6` timing out after about 1.8-2.0 seconds, while the sampled process CPU was only 0.9%.

The cautious code-level inference is that this is likely the `munin-node` daemon’s normal idle server loop, not a confirmed runaway loop. The application entrypoint `script/munin-node` delegates serving to `Munin::Node::Server`, which subclasses `Net::Server::Fork`; plugin execution uses local helpers `Munin::Common::Timeout` and `Munin::Node::OS->run_as_child`. I also checked the Perl runtime only as the second target: the native backtrace contains Perl runtime frames, but no evidence shows Perl mishandling this workload.

I made no source change. This follows the saved plan rather than drifting from it: the evidence is profiler/syscall-level only, and the local reproduction attempts could not establish a busy loop. The expected effect of this no-patch disposition is to avoid landing an upstream change for behavior that currently looks like normal blocking accept-loop activity.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
`make` from the workspace root failed before building because `Module::Build` is missing:
`Can't locate Module/Build.pm in @INC ... at Build.PL line 80.`

`make -n check` failed because there is no `check` target:
`make: *** No rule to make target 'check'. Stop.`

Narrow checks run after the build blocker:
`perl -c lib/Munin/Common/Timeout.pm && perl -c lib/Munin/Node/OS.pm && perl -c lib/Munin/Node/Service.pm && perl -c lib/Munin/Node/Server.pm`
All reported syntax OK, with existing `Munin::Node::OS.pm` redefinition warnings during compilation.

Independent reproduction attempt:
`timeout 6 strace -ttT -f -e trace=pselect6,select,poll,ppoll,epoll_wait,nanosleep,clock_nanosleep /usr/bin/munin-node --foreground`
Blocked by ptrace restrictions: `PTRACE_TRACEME: Operation not permitted`.

Fallback smoke attempt with a temporary config also could not reproduce the signal because the sandbox denied binding a TCP port:
`Cannot bind and listen to TCP port 4959 on 127.0.0.1 [Operation not permitted]`.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: ok

No source diff is present against the original snapshot, and `Git Add Paths` correctly lists `None`.

The author’s no-patch diagnosis is consistent with the evidence level: the bundle contains indirect profiler/syscall evidence, low sampled CPU, sleeping process state, and `pselect6` calls that block for about two seconds. The response does not overclaim reproduction, uses `inferred`, and explains why a source patch would be speculative.

Validation is acceptable for a no-patch pass: `make` was attempted and the missing `Module::Build` blocker is reported, `make check` was checked and found absent, focused Perl syntax checks were run, and the independent strace/smoke reproduction blockers are stated clearly.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior, treat it as security-sensitive: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the security impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis; otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout. The latest author response is at `./patch-output.txt`. Inspect the current code and changed paths like a strict code reviewer. Focus on correctness, regressions, maintainability, awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto`, missing validation, weak or non-gittable commit message text, and explanations that fail to connect the observed issue evidence to the code change. Also review the maintainer experience: the patch mail should be easy to accept upstream, the user-visible bug should be explained in plain language, subsystem-specific jargon should be defined when first used, and any non-obvious state translation or index remapping in code should have a short explanatory comment. Reject patches that omit `## Evidence Confidence`, use anything other than `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`, or sound more certain than that evidence level allows. Reject patches that claim `reproduced` unless `## Validation` names the concrete reproduction command or test and its result. Reject source patches in security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior unless the author reproduced the behavior and explicitly analyzed the security impact of the change; observed-only evidence should become a diagnosis/report, not a PR-ready source diff. Reject patches that invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure not present in the evidence bundle; indirect profiler or strace evidence may justify a cautious mitigation, but the author must say it is indirect instead of presenting it as a confirmed upstream bug. Reject patches that introduce generic libc/std APIs when nearby code or project docs provide a local compat/helper API for the same job, unless the author explicitly justifies the exception. Reject validation that only reports a leaf object/syntax build when a project-level configure/build/test entrypoint exists and was not attempted; if a full build cannot run, the author must show the exact failed command and blocker.

Do not apply code changes in this pass.

Return a short markdown review report. The first non-empty line must be exactly one of:

RESULT: ok
RESULT: fix-needed

If you choose `RESULT: fix-needed`, add a `## Findings` section with concrete, actionable items.

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem
Fixer observed `/usr/bin/perl -wT /usr/sbin/munin-node --foreground` in `pselect6`, but the retained strace shows blocking waits of about 1.8s and 2.0s, process state `S (sleeping)`, and only 0.9% CPU. The evidence does not include a Perl-level stack or a script-line tie to `munin-node`, so a source change would be speculative.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Proposed Subject
No source patch yet: diagnose whether `munin-node` is actually busy-polling before changing upstream code.

## Patch Plan
Do not edit files in this pass. Inspecting `script/munin-node` and `lib/Munin/Node/Server.pm` shows the entrypoint delegates to `Net::Server::Fork`, with request handling bounded by the local `Munin::Common::Timeout::do_with_timeout` helper. The only relevant local daemon helper found is `Munin::Common::Daemon::emit_sd_notify_message`; plugin process IO uses `Munin::Node::OS->run_as_child`.

The collected evidence looks more like a normally sleeping `select` loop than a runaway loop, so the next patch step should first collect stronger evidence: a bounded local foreground `munin-node` run under strace, plus a Perl/module stack if it spins. If that shows rapid zero-timeout `select` or repeated immediate wakeups attributable to `Munin::Node::Server` or plugin child IO, then patch the smallest implicated path and prefer existing helpers over ad hoc timing or process-control code.

No prior Fixer source patch was present to improve or replace; the workspace only shows the baseline Debian source/patch state.

## Risks
A no-patch diagnosis may miss an intermittent production-only wakeup source, such as Net::Server configuration, socket readiness, TLS setup, or a plugin side effect. A speculative sleep/throttle patch would risk hiding real readiness bugs or changing daemon responsiveness without proving the issue.

## Validation
Before any focused check, try the project entrypoints from the workspace root: `make`, then `make check` if available. This tree exposes `make test` rather than `make check`, so if `make check` is absent or fails as “No rule to make target,” report that exact reason and run `make test`.

Bounded independent reproduction attempt: after build generation, start `script/munin-node --foreground` with a temporary minimal config and empty plugin dir under `timeout`, trace only `select`/`pselect6`, and verify whether waits block for nonzero durations or spin immediately. If no spin is reproduced, final reporting should state that Fixer observed the profile but local validation did not reproduce a busy poll.

## Patch Pass

Subject: No patch: munin-node select profile is inconclusive

## Commit Message
No source change was made. The collected signal points at an idle `select` wait in `munin-node`, but the retained `/proc` and strace details do not prove a busy loop in Munin or Perl.

The likely root cause is a profiler misclassification: the process was sleeping in `poll_schedule_timeout`, strace showed `pselect6` calls blocking for about two seconds, and CPU was only 0.9%. That is consistent with an idle `Net::Server::Fork` listener, not a tight application loop.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
Fixer observed `/usr/bin/perl -wT /usr/sbin/munin-node --foreground` with native frames under `select`/`pselect6`. The evidence also says the process state was `S (sleeping)`, the wait channel was `poll_schedule_timeout.constprop.0`, and the retained strace lines blocked for about 1.8s and 2.0s.

I inspected both sides of the interpreter report: the Perl runtime was `/usr/bin/perl` 5.40.1, but the application entrypoint is `script/munin-node`, which delegates the server loop to `Munin::Node::Server` and `Net::Server::Fork`. In the Munin code, request handling uses the existing `Munin::Common::Timeout::do_with_timeout` helper, daemon readiness uses `Munin::Common::Daemon::emit_sd_notify_message`, and plugin execution goes through `Munin::Node::OS->run_as_child`. I found no Munin-level polling loop matching the evidence.

Following `CONTRIBUTING.md` and `HACKING.pod`, I did not add a speculative sleep, throttle, or control-flow change. The evidence is profiler/strace based and lacks a Perl-level stack tying the sampled wait to a Munin source line. The expected effect of leaving no patch is to avoid an upstream change that would mask normal idle listener behavior without proving a Munin bug.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
`make` failed before build generation because `Module::Build` is missing:
`Can't locate Module/Build.pm in @INC ... at Build.PL line 80`
`make: *** [Makefile:149: Build] Error 2`

`make check` failed because this tree has no check target:
`make: *** No rule to make target 'check'.  Stop.`

Focused checks:
`perl -Ilib -c lib/Munin/Node/Server.pm` passed.
`perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node` passed.

Independent reproduction attempt:
`timeout 5s strace -ttT -f -e trace=pselect6,select,poll,ppoll,epoll_wait,nanosleep,clock_nanosleep ... script/munin-node --foreground ...` was blocked by sandbox ptrace restrictions:
`PTRACE_TRACEME: Operation not permitted`
`ptrace(PTRACE_SEIZE, 8): Operation not permitted`

A weaker foreground smoke run with `/usr/bin/time` and a temporary config also could not start the listener because the sandbox denied bind/listen:
`Cannot bind and listen to TCP port 14949 on 127.0.0.1 [Operation not permitted]`

Because the failure signal was not independently reproduced and the available evidence is indirect, no source diff is pull-request-ready.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: ok

No source changes are present in the workspace, and the no-patch diagnosis is consistent with the evidence level. The author correctly kept `## Evidence Confidence` as `inferred`, listed `None` under `## Git Add Paths`, and did not leave a speculative source diff for profiler/strace-only evidence.

Validation is acceptable for a no-patch review: `make` and `make check` were attempted from the workspace root with exact blockers reported, followed by focused Perl syntax checks and a bounded reproduction attempt that was blocked by ptrace/network sandbox restrictions. The explanation also names the relevant Munin helpers and conventions inspected.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior, treat it as security-sensitive: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the security impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis; otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout. The latest author response is at `./patch-output.txt`. Inspect the current code and changed paths like a strict code reviewer. Focus on correctness, regressions, maintainability, awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto`, missing validation, weak or non-gittable commit message text, and explanations that fail to connect the observed issue evidence to the code change. Also review the maintainer experience: the patch mail should be easy to accept upstream, the user-visible bug should be explained in plain language, subsystem-specific jargon should be defined when first used, and any non-obvious state translation or index remapping in code should have a short explanatory comment. Reject patches that omit `## Evidence Confidence`, use anything other than `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`, or sound more certain than that evidence level allows. Reject patches that claim `reproduced` unless `## Validation` names the concrete reproduction command or test and its result. Reject source patches in security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior unless the author reproduced the behavior and explicitly analyzed the security impact of the change; observed-only evidence should become a diagnosis/report, not a PR-ready source diff. Reject patches that invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure not present in the evidence bundle; indirect profiler or strace evidence may justify a cautious mitigation, but the author must say it is indirect instead of presenting it as a confirmed upstream bug. Reject patches that introduce generic libc/std APIs when nearby code or project docs provide a local compat/helper API for the same job, unless the author explicitly justifies the exception. Reject validation that only reports a leaf object/syntax build when a project-level configure/build/test entrypoint exists and was not attempted; if a full build cannot run, the author must show the exact failed command and blocker.

Do not apply code changes in this pass.

Return a short markdown review report. The first non-empty line must be exactly one of:

RESULT: ok
RESULT: fix-needed

If you choose `RESULT: fix-needed`, add a `## Findings` section with concrete, actionable items.

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem
Fixer observed `/usr/bin/perl -wT /usr/sbin/munin-node --foreground` in `pselect6`, but the retained strace shows blocking waits of about 1.8s and 2.0s, process state `S (sleeping)`, and only 0.9% CPU. The evidence does not include a Perl-level stack or a script-line tie to `munin-node`, so a source change would be speculative.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Proposed Subject
No source patch yet: diagnose whether `munin-node` is actually busy-polling before changing upstream code.

## Patch Plan
Do not edit files in this pass. Inspecting `script/munin-node` and `lib/Munin/Node/Server.pm` shows the entrypoint delegates to `Net::Server::Fork`, with request handling bounded by the local `Munin::Common::Timeout::do_with_timeout` helper. The only relevant local daemon helper found is `Munin::Common::Daemon::emit_sd_notify_message`; plugin process IO uses `Munin::Node::OS->run_as_child`.

The collected evidence looks more like a normally sleeping `select` loop than a runaway loop, so the next patch step should first collect stronger evidence: a bounded local foreground `munin-node` run under strace, plus a Perl/module stack if it spins. If that shows rapid zero-timeout `select` or repeated immediate wakeups attributable to `Munin::Node::Server` or plugin child IO, then patch the smallest implicated path and prefer existing helpers over ad hoc timing or process-control code.

No prior Fixer source patch was present to improve or replace; the workspace only shows the baseline Debian source/patch state.

## Risks
A no-patch diagnosis may miss an intermittent production-only wakeup source, such as Net::Server configuration, socket readiness, TLS setup, or a plugin side effect. A speculative sleep/throttle patch would risk hiding real readiness bugs or changing daemon responsiveness without proving the issue.

## Validation
Before any focused check, try the project entrypoints from the workspace root: `make`, then `make check` if available. This tree exposes `make test` rather than `make check`, so if `make check` is absent or fails as “No rule to make target,” report that exact reason and run `make test`.

Bounded independent reproduction attempt: after build generation, start `script/munin-node --foreground` with a temporary minimal config and empty plugin dir under `timeout`, trace only `select`/`pselect6`, and verify whether waits block for nonzero durations or spin immediately. If no spin is reproduced, final reporting should state that Fixer observed the profile but local validation did not reproduce a busy poll.

## Patch Pass

Subject: No patch: munin-node select profile is inconclusive

## Commit Message
No source change was made. The collected signal points at an idle `select` wait in `munin-node`, but the retained `/proc` and strace details do not prove a busy loop in Munin or Perl.

The likely root cause is a profiler misclassification: the process was sleeping in `poll_schedule_timeout`, strace showed `pselect6` calls blocking for about two seconds, and CPU was only 0.9%. That is consistent with an idle `Net::Server::Fork` listener, not a tight application loop.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
Fixer observed `/usr/bin/perl -wT /usr/sbin/munin-node --foreground` with native frames under `select`/`pselect6`. The evidence also says the process state was `S (sleeping)`, the wait channel was `poll_schedule_timeout.constprop.0`, and the retained strace lines blocked for about 1.8s and 2.0s.

I inspected both sides of the interpreter report: the Perl runtime was `/usr/bin/perl` 5.40.1, but the application entrypoint is `script/munin-node`, which delegates the server loop to `Munin::Node::Server` and `Net::Server::Fork`. In the Munin code, request handling uses the existing `Munin::Common::Timeout::do_with_timeout` helper, daemon readiness uses `Munin::Common::Daemon::emit_sd_notify_message`, and plugin execution goes through `Munin::Node::OS->run_as_child`. I found no Munin-level polling loop matching the evidence.

Following `CONTRIBUTING.md` and `HACKING.pod`, I did not add a speculative sleep, throttle, or control-flow change. The evidence is profiler/strace based and lacks a Perl-level stack tying the sampled wait to a Munin source line. The expected effect of leaving no patch is to avoid an upstream change that would mask normal idle listener behavior without proving a Munin bug.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
`make` failed before build generation because `Module::Build` is missing:
`Can't locate Module/Build.pm in @INC ... at Build.PL line 80`
`make: *** [Makefile:149: Build] Error 2`

`make check` failed because this tree has no check target:
`make: *** No rule to make target 'check'.  Stop.`

Focused checks:
`perl -Ilib -c lib/Munin/Node/Server.pm` passed.
`perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node` passed.

Independent reproduction attempt:
`timeout 5s strace -ttT -f -e trace=pselect6,select,poll,ppoll,epoll_wait,nanosleep,clock_nanosleep ... script/munin-node --foreground ...` was blocked by sandbox ptrace restrictions:
`PTRACE_TRACEME: Operation not permitted`
`ptrace(PTRACE_SEIZE, 8): Operation not permitted`

A weaker foreground smoke run with `/usr/bin/time` and a temporary config also could not start the listener because the sandbox denied bind/listen:
`Cannot bind and listen to TCP port 14949 on 127.0.0.1 [Operation not permitted]`

Because the failure signal was not independently reproduced and the available evidence is indirect, no source diff is pull-request-ready.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: ok

No source changes are present in the workspace, and the no-patch diagnosis is consistent with the evidence level. The author correctly kept `## Evidence Confidence` as `inferred`, listed `None` under `## Git Add Paths`, and did not leave a speculative source diff for profiler/strace-only evidence.

Validation is acceptable for a no-patch review: `make` and `make check` were attempted from the workspace root with exact blockers reported, followed by focused Perl syntax checks and a bounded reproduction attempt that was blocked by ptrace/network sandbox restrictions. The explanation also names the relevant Munin helpers and conventions inspected.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior, treat it as security-sensitive: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the security impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis; otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout. The latest author response is at `./patch-output.txt`. Inspect the current code and changed paths like a strict code reviewer. Focus on correctness, regressions, maintainability, awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto`, missing validation, weak or non-gittable commit message text, and explanations that fail to connect the observed issue evidence to the code change. Also review the maintainer experience: the patch mail should be easy to accept upstream, the user-visible bug should be explained in plain language, subsystem-specific jargon should be defined when first used, and any non-obvious state translation or index remapping in code should have a short explanatory comment. Reject patches that omit `## Evidence Confidence`, use anything other than `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`, or sound more certain than that evidence level allows. Reject patches that claim `reproduced` unless `## Validation` names the concrete reproduction command or test and its result. Reject source patches in security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior unless the author reproduced the behavior and explicitly analyzed the security impact of the change; observed-only evidence should become a diagnosis/report, not a PR-ready source diff. Reject patches that invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure not present in the evidence bundle; indirect profiler or strace evidence may justify a cautious mitigation, but the author must say it is indirect instead of presenting it as a confirmed upstream bug. Reject patches that introduce generic libc/std APIs when nearby code or project docs provide a local compat/helper API for the same job, unless the author explicitly justifies the exception. Reject validation that only reports a leaf object/syntax build when a project-level configure/build/test entrypoint exists and was not attempted; if a full build cannot run, the author must show the exact failed command and blocker.

Do not apply code changes in this pass.

Return a short markdown review report. The first non-empty line must be exactly one of:

RESULT: ok
RESULT: fix-needed

If you choose `RESULT: fix-needed`, add a `## Findings` section with concrete, actionable items.

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem
Fixer flagged `/usr/bin/perl -wT /usr/sbin/munin-node --foreground` as a likely busy poll loop, but the retained evidence shows `munin-node` sleeping in `pselect6` with roughly 1.8s and 2.0s waits. The stack is consistent with the `Net::Server::Fork` accept/select loop used by `Munin::Node::Server`, not with a confirmed tight loop in Munin or Perl.

## Evidence Confidence
observed

## Proposed Subject
No source patch yet: diagnose as an observed profiler signal that is not pull-request-ready as a Munin bug fix.

## Patch Plan
Do not edit files in this pass, and do not propose a speculative runtime or application patch.

Document that the evidence bundle observed a Perl interpreter process for `munin-node`, but did not retain a Perl-level stack or a reproducer tying CPU burn to a script line. The available `strace_excerpt` shows blocking `pselect6` calls, and `status_excerpt` reports `S (sleeping)`, which weakens the “busy-poll” interpretation.

If later evidence proves a Munin-side loop, start from `script/munin-node` and `lib/Munin/Node/Server.pm`, not Perl itself. Follow existing conventions from `CONTRIBUTING.md` and `HACKING.pod`: taint-safe Perl, `use strict`, `use warnings`, English variable names, one statement per line, and file-local style. Use existing local helpers where applicable: `Munin::Common::Timeout::do_with_timeout`, `Munin::Common::Logger`, `Munin::Common::Daemon::emit_sd_notify_message`, and `Munin::Node::Server`’s `_net_read`/`_net_write` wrappers.

No prior Fixer patch is present in the workspace (`git status --short` was clean), so there is nothing to replace or improve. Avoid adding awkward control flow such as a defensive `goto`; any future fix should be a bounded change in the relevant event-loop or timeout handling path with a direct reproducer.

## Risks
A source patch from the current evidence would likely change normal daemon idle behavior without proving a bug. Touching `munin-node` request handling also risks affecting TLS negotiation, master compatibility, plugin execution, and timeout semantics.

## Validation
Before any future focused check, try the project entrypoint from the workspace root:

`make`

If available and after build prerequisites are satisfied, also try:

`make check`

This Makefile exposes `make test` rather than `check`, so the practical project test command is expected to be `make test`.

For a bounded independent reproduction attempt, run `munin-node --foreground` from a clean built tree with a minimal config and observe whether idle `pselect6` calls return immediately or block for nonzero time. Only claim `reproduced` if that command shows repeated immediate wakeups or sustained CPU, not merely normal timed sleeps.

## Patch Pass

Subject: Diagnose munin-node idle pselect profile

## Commit Message
No source change is included. The likely root cause is a profiler misclassification: the collected `munin-node` process was in `pselect6`, but the retained timings show it blocking for about two seconds at a time, and `/proc` reported the process as sleeping. That matches an idle `Net::Server::Fork` daemon waiting for work, not a proven tight event-loop spin.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
Fixer collected a perf sample for `/usr/bin/perl -wT /usr/sbin/munin-node --foreground` and classified it as a likely busy poll loop. The same bundle also shows `pselect6` calls lasting about 1.8s and 2.0s, `wchan` in `poll_schedule_timeout`, process state `S (sleeping)`, and only 0.9% CPU for the sampled Perl process.

The cautious code-level inference is that the observed frames come from `munin-node`’s daemon wait path, implemented through `Munin::Node::Server` on top of `Net::Server::Fork`, rather than from a Munin request handler or a Perl runtime bug. I inspected the Perl entrypoint `script/munin-node`, the server module `lib/Munin/Node/Server.pm`, and the node OS helper code; no local loop was found that matches an immediate wakeup or runaway CPU signal.

I followed the saved plan, except I classify this final result as `inferred` because the remaining evidence is profiler/strace/proc-derived and I could not independently reproduce the failure signal. I made no code change. The expected effect is that this proposal avoids landing an upstream patch that would alter normal daemon idle behavior without a demonstrated Munin bug.

Local conventions checked: `CONTRIBUTING.md` and `HACKING.pod` require taint-safe Perl, `use strict`, `use warnings`, English variable names, and file-local style. Relevant helpers found were `Munin::Common::Timeout::do_with_timeout`, `Munin::Common::Logger`, `Munin::Common::Daemon::emit_sd_notify_message`, and `Munin::Node::Server`’s `_net_read`/`_net_write`.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
`make` failed from the workspace root because the environment lacks `Module::Build`: `Can't locate Module/Build.pm in @INC ... at Build.PL line 80`, followed by `make: *** [Makefile:149: Build] Error 2`.

`make check` is not available in this tree; the Makefile exposes `test`, `testpod`, and related targets, but no `check` target.

Narrow checks run after the project build blocker:
`perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node` passed.
`perl -Ilib -c lib/Munin/Node/Server.pm` passed.
`perl -Ilib -c lib/Munin/Node/OS.pm` passed, with redefinition warnings from the installed system Munin modules also present in `@INC`.

Independent reproduction was attempted with a minimal foreground `munin-node` config. `strace` was blocked by sandbox ptrace restrictions: `PTRACE_TRACEME: Operation not permitted`. A lower-privilege foreground smoke run was then blocked by sandbox network restrictions when binding localhost: `Cannot bind and listen to TCP port 14952 on 127.0.0.1 [Operation not permitted]`. Therefore I did not independently reproduce the reported busy-poll signal.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: ok

The first patch pass is a no-patch diagnosis, and the workspace has no source diff. That matches the evidence: the bundle is profiler/strace/proc-derived, shows `munin-node` sleeping in `pselect6` with ~2s waits, and does not prove a Munin or Perl tight loop.

The response includes the required `## Evidence Confidence` section with an allowed value, does not claim reproduction, lists `Git Add Paths` as `None`, and explains why a source patch would be speculative. Validation is acceptable for a no-patch report: `make` was attempted first and the `Module::Build` blocker was reported, followed by narrow syntax checks and a bounded reproduction attempt that was blocked by ptrace/network sandbox restrictions.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior, treat it as security-sensitive: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the security impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis; otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout. The latest author response is at `./patch-output.txt`. Inspect the current code and changed paths like a strict code reviewer. Focus on correctness, regressions, maintainability, awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto`, missing validation, weak or non-gittable commit message text, and explanations that fail to connect the observed issue evidence to the code change. Also review the maintainer experience: the patch mail should be easy to accept upstream, the user-visible bug should be explained in plain language, subsystem-specific jargon should be defined when first used, and any non-obvious state translation or index remapping in code should have a short explanatory comment. Reject patches that omit `## Evidence Confidence`, use anything other than `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`, or sound more certain than that evidence level allows. Reject patches that claim `reproduced` unless `## Validation` names the concrete reproduction command or test and its result. Reject source patches in security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior unless the author reproduced the behavior and explicitly analyzed the security impact of the change; observed-only evidence should become a diagnosis/report, not a PR-ready source diff. Reject patches that invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure not present in the evidence bundle; indirect profiler or strace evidence may justify a cautious mitigation, but the author must say it is indirect instead of presenting it as a confirmed upstream bug. Reject patches that introduce generic libc/std APIs when nearby code or project docs provide a local compat/helper API for the same job, unless the author explicitly justifies the exception. Reject validation that only reports a leaf object/syntax build when a project-level configure/build/test entrypoint exists and was not attempted; if a full build cannot run, the author must show the exact failed command and blocker.

Do not apply code changes in this pass.

Return a short markdown review report. The first non-empty line must be exactly one of:

RESULT: ok
RESULT: fix-needed

If you choose `RESULT: fix-needed`, add a `## Findings` section with concrete, actionable items.

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem
Fixer flagged `/usr/bin/perl -wT /usr/sbin/munin-node --foreground` as a likely busy poll loop, but the retained evidence shows `munin-node` sleeping in `pselect6` with roughly 1.8s and 2.0s waits. The stack is consistent with the `Net::Server::Fork` accept/select loop used by `Munin::Node::Server`, not with a confirmed tight loop in Munin or Perl.

## Evidence Confidence
observed

## Proposed Subject
No source patch yet: diagnose as an observed profiler signal that is not pull-request-ready as a Munin bug fix.

## Patch Plan
Do not edit files in this pass, and do not propose a speculative runtime or application patch.

Document that the evidence bundle observed a Perl interpreter process for `munin-node`, but did not retain a Perl-level stack or a reproducer tying CPU burn to a script line. The available `strace_excerpt` shows blocking `pselect6` calls, and `status_excerpt` reports `S (sleeping)`, which weakens the “busy-poll” interpretation.

If later evidence proves a Munin-side loop, start from `script/munin-node` and `lib/Munin/Node/Server.pm`, not Perl itself. Follow existing conventions from `CONTRIBUTING.md` and `HACKING.pod`: taint-safe Perl, `use strict`, `use warnings`, English variable names, one statement per line, and file-local style. Use existing local helpers where applicable: `Munin::Common::Timeout::do_with_timeout`, `Munin::Common::Logger`, `Munin::Common::Daemon::emit_sd_notify_message`, and `Munin::Node::Server`’s `_net_read`/`_net_write` wrappers.

No prior Fixer patch is present in the workspace (`git status --short` was clean), so there is nothing to replace or improve. Avoid adding awkward control flow such as a defensive `goto`; any future fix should be a bounded change in the relevant event-loop or timeout handling path with a direct reproducer.

## Risks
A source patch from the current evidence would likely change normal daemon idle behavior without proving a bug. Touching `munin-node` request handling also risks affecting TLS negotiation, master compatibility, plugin execution, and timeout semantics.

## Validation
Before any future focused check, try the project entrypoint from the workspace root:

`make`

If available and after build prerequisites are satisfied, also try:

`make check`

This Makefile exposes `make test` rather than `check`, so the practical project test command is expected to be `make test`.

For a bounded independent reproduction attempt, run `munin-node --foreground` from a clean built tree with a minimal config and observe whether idle `pselect6` calls return immediately or block for nonzero time. Only claim `reproduced` if that command shows repeated immediate wakeups or sustained CPU, not merely normal timed sleeps.

## Patch Pass

Subject: Diagnose munin-node idle pselect profile

## Commit Message
No source change is included. The likely root cause is a profiler misclassification: the collected `munin-node` process was in `pselect6`, but the retained timings show it blocking for about two seconds at a time, and `/proc` reported the process as sleeping. That matches an idle `Net::Server::Fork` daemon waiting for work, not a proven tight event-loop spin.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
Fixer collected a perf sample for `/usr/bin/perl -wT /usr/sbin/munin-node --foreground` and classified it as a likely busy poll loop. The same bundle also shows `pselect6` calls lasting about 1.8s and 2.0s, `wchan` in `poll_schedule_timeout`, process state `S (sleeping)`, and only 0.9% CPU for the sampled Perl process.

The cautious code-level inference is that the observed frames come from `munin-node`’s daemon wait path, implemented through `Munin::Node::Server` on top of `Net::Server::Fork`, rather than from a Munin request handler or a Perl runtime bug. I inspected the Perl entrypoint `script/munin-node`, the server module `lib/Munin/Node/Server.pm`, and the node OS helper code; no local loop was found that matches an immediate wakeup or runaway CPU signal.

I followed the saved plan, except I classify this final result as `inferred` because the remaining evidence is profiler/strace/proc-derived and I could not independently reproduce the failure signal. I made no code change. The expected effect is that this proposal avoids landing an upstream patch that would alter normal daemon idle behavior without a demonstrated Munin bug.

Local conventions checked: `CONTRIBUTING.md` and `HACKING.pod` require taint-safe Perl, `use strict`, `use warnings`, English variable names, and file-local style. Relevant helpers found were `Munin::Common::Timeout::do_with_timeout`, `Munin::Common::Logger`, `Munin::Common::Daemon::emit_sd_notify_message`, and `Munin::Node::Server`’s `_net_read`/`_net_write`.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
`make` failed from the workspace root because the environment lacks `Module::Build`: `Can't locate Module/Build.pm in @INC ... at Build.PL line 80`, followed by `make: *** [Makefile:149: Build] Error 2`.

`make check` is not available in this tree; the Makefile exposes `test`, `testpod`, and related targets, but no `check` target.

Narrow checks run after the project build blocker:
`perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node` passed.
`perl -Ilib -c lib/Munin/Node/Server.pm` passed.
`perl -Ilib -c lib/Munin/Node/OS.pm` passed, with redefinition warnings from the installed system Munin modules also present in `@INC`.

Independent reproduction was attempted with a minimal foreground `munin-node` config. `strace` was blocked by sandbox ptrace restrictions: `PTRACE_TRACEME: Operation not permitted`. A lower-privilege foreground smoke run was then blocked by sandbox network restrictions when binding localhost: `Cannot bind and listen to TCP port 14952 on 127.0.0.1 [Operation not permitted]`. Therefore I did not independently reproduce the reported busy-poll signal.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: ok

The first patch pass is a no-patch diagnosis, and the workspace has no source diff. That matches the evidence: the bundle is profiler/strace/proc-derived, shows `munin-node` sleeping in `pselect6` with ~2s waits, and does not prove a Munin or Perl tight loop.

The response includes the required `## Evidence Confidence` section with an allowed value, does not claim reproduction, lists `Git Add Paths` as `None`, and explains why a source patch would be speculative. Validation is acceptable for a no-patch report: `make` was attempted first and the `Module::Build` blocker was reported, followed by narrow syntax checks and a bounded reproduction attempt that was blocked by ptrace/network sandbox restrictions.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior, treat it as security-sensitive: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the security impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis; otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout. The latest author response is at `./patch-output.txt`. Inspect the current code and changed paths like a strict code reviewer. Focus on correctness, regressions, maintainability, awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto`, missing validation, weak or non-gittable commit message text, and explanations that fail to connect the observed issue evidence to the code change. Also review the maintainer experience: the patch mail should be easy to accept upstream, the user-visible bug should be explained in plain language, subsystem-specific jargon should be defined when first used, and any non-obvious state translation or index remapping in code should have a short explanatory comment. Reject patches that omit `## Evidence Confidence`, use anything other than `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`, or sound more certain than that evidence level allows. Reject patches that claim `reproduced` unless `## Validation` names the concrete reproduction command or test and its result. Reject source patches in security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior unless the author reproduced the behavior and explicitly analyzed the security impact of the change; observed-only evidence should become a diagnosis/report, not a PR-ready source diff. Reject patches that invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure not present in the evidence bundle; indirect profiler or strace evidence may justify a cautious mitigation, but the author must say it is indirect instead of presenting it as a confirmed upstream bug. Reject patches that introduce generic libc/std APIs when nearby code or project docs provide a local compat/helper API for the same job, unless the author explicitly justifies the exception. Reject validation that only reports a leaf object/syntax build when a project-level configure/build/test entrypoint exists and was not attempted; if a full build cannot run, the author must show the exact failed command and blocker.

Do not apply code changes in this pass.

Return a short markdown review report. The first non-empty line must be exactly one of:

RESULT: ok
RESULT: fix-needed

If you choose `RESULT: fix-needed`, add a `## Findings` section with concrete, actionable items.

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem

Fixer flagged `/usr/bin/perl -wT /usr/sbin/munin-node --foreground` as a likely busy poll loop. The retained evidence does not tie the native `select()`/`pselect6()` frames to a Perl source line, and the strace excerpt shows blocking waits of about 1.8-2.0 seconds with process state `S (sleeping)` and only `0.9%` CPU. That looks more like normal `munin-node`/`Net::Server::Fork` idle waiting than a proven runaway loop.

## Evidence Confidence

inferred

## Proposed Subject

No source patch yet: document this as an inconclusive/likely false-positive profiler finding for `munin-node` unless an independent reproduction captures a Perl-level stack or a tight nonblocking poll loop.

## Patch Plan

Do not edit source on this pass. The evidence is profiler/native-stack only and explicitly lacks a Perl-level stack, so a PR-ready munin patch is not justified.

If later evidence proves an application loop, investigate from `script/munin-node` into `lib/Munin/Node/Server.pm` first, not Perl runtime code. Runtime investigation should remain secondary unless the reproduced trace proves Perl mishandles a blocking wait.

Follow Munin conventions found in `CONTRIBUTING.md` and `HACKING.pod`: strict/warnings Perl style, local file style, no unnecessary wrapping, and use existing helpers. Relevant local helpers/conventions are `Munin::Common::Timeout::do_with_timeout`, `Munin::Common::Logger`, `Munin::Node::Server::_net_read/_net_write`, TLS wrappers, and `Munin::Node::OS->run_as_child`. The existing node request path already uses `do_with_timeout`.

No prior Fixer patch is present in this workspace to improve or replace. If a future patch is warranted, keep it bounded with ordinary returns/conditionals; do not introduce avoidable `goto`.

## Risks

Patching from the current evidence would risk changing idle server behavior, connection handling, or timeout semantics without a demonstrated bug. This area includes timeout behavior, so any source change would need reproduced behavior and impact analysis before editing.

A local sandbox reproduction may not match the production sample because the raw investigation artifacts are not present in the workspace and the evidence bundle retained only excerpts.

## Validation

Before any focused check, try the project-level entrypoint from the workspace root:

`make`

`make check` only if a check target is available; this Makefile does not define one, so use the project test target:

`make test`

For a bounded independent reproduction attempt, use Munin’s documented dev wrappers from `HACKING.pod`: build/install a sandbox with `./dev_scripts/install clean node`, start `munin-node` via `./dev_scripts/run munin-node --foreground` or `./dev_scripts/start_munin-node`, then sample `ps -o pid,stat,pcpu,etime,wchan,args` and, if available, `strace -ttT -f -e trace=pselect6,select,poll,ppoll` for a short window. Only claim reproduction if that shows rapid poll returns or a Perl-level stack tied to the loop; blocking 2-second `pselect6` timeouts should be reported as non-reproduction.

## Patch Pass

Subject: Diagnose munin-node poll finding as inconclusive

## Commit Message

No source change is included. The collected signal points at an idle `munin-node` process blocked in `select`/`pselect6`, but it does not include a Perl-level stack or a local reproduction that ties the samples to a source bug.

## Evidence Confidence

inferred

## Issue Connection

The collected signal was `/usr/bin/perl -wT /usr/sbin/munin-node --foreground` sampled in native `select()`/`pselect6()` frames and classified as a likely busy poll loop. The same evidence shows `pselect6` calls blocking for about 1.8-2.0 seconds, process state `S (sleeping)`, `wchan` at `poll_schedule_timeout`, and only `0.9%` CPU, so the cautious inference is that an idle `munin-node` wait was misclassified as a tight poll loop.

I inspected the Perl entrypoint first, as required for interpreter processes: `script/munin-node` delegates to `Munin::Node::Server`, which uses `Net::Server::Fork`; request processing already uses the local `Munin::Common::Timeout::do_with_timeout` helper and `Munin::Common::Logger`, and nearby child process handling uses `Munin::Node::OS->run_as_child`. I also checked `CONTRIBUTING.md` and `HACKING.pod`; no local helper or maintainer convention suggests a small source change that would address the observed samples.

No patch was made because changing timing/throttling or server wait behavior from this indirect evidence would not be pull-request-ready. The expected effect of this report is to give upstream a clear diagnosis and the next evidence needed: a Perl-level stack or syscall trace showing rapid nonblocking poll returns before changing `munin-node` or Perl runtime code.

## Git Add Paths

None

## Validation

`make` failed before build generation because `Module::Build` is missing:

`Can't locate Module/Build.pm in @INC ... at Build.PL line 80.`

`make check` failed because this Makefile has no `check` target:

`make: *** No rule to make target 'check'. Stop.`

`make test` hit the same `Module::Build` blocker as `make`.

Focused checks run after the project-level blocker:

`perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node` passed.

`perl -Ilib -c lib/Munin/Node/Server.pm` passed.

`perl -Ilib -c lib/Munin/Node/OS.pm` passed, with redefinition warnings from the module’s circular load path.

Independent reproduction was attempted with a temporary high-port `munin-node` config. `strace` could not run because ptrace is blocked: `PTRACE_TRACEME: Operation not permitted`. A fallback `ps` smoke attempt could not keep the server running because binding even the high test port failed: `Cannot bind and listen to TCP port 14949 on * [Operation not permitted]`. The failure was not reproduced locally.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: ok

No source changes are present in the workspace, so there is no patch diff to reject. The response correctly treats the evidence as `inferred`, keeps `Git Add Paths` as `None`, avoids claiming reproduction, and explains why the profiler/strace signal is not enough for an upstream source patch.

Validation reporting is acceptable: project-level `make`, `make check`, and `make test` were attempted or accounted for with exact blockers, followed by focused syntax checks and a bounded reproduction attempt that was blocked by ptrace and port-binding restrictions.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior, treat it as security-sensitive: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the security impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis; otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout. The latest author response is at `./patch-output.txt`. Inspect the current code and changed paths like a strict code reviewer. Focus on correctness, regressions, maintainability, awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto`, missing validation, weak or non-gittable commit message text, and explanations that fail to connect the observed issue evidence to the code change. Also review the maintainer experience: the patch mail should be easy to accept upstream, the user-visible bug should be explained in plain language, subsystem-specific jargon should be defined when first used, and any non-obvious state translation or index remapping in code should have a short explanatory comment. Reject patches that omit `## Evidence Confidence`, use anything other than `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`, or sound more certain than that evidence level allows. Reject patches that claim `reproduced` unless `## Validation` names the concrete reproduction command or test and its result. Reject source patches in security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior unless the author reproduced the behavior and explicitly analyzed the security impact of the change; observed-only evidence should become a diagnosis/report, not a PR-ready source diff. Reject patches that invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure not present in the evidence bundle; indirect profiler or strace evidence may justify a cautious mitigation, but the author must say it is indirect instead of presenting it as a confirmed upstream bug. Reject patches that introduce generic libc/std APIs when nearby code or project docs provide a local compat/helper API for the same job, unless the author explicitly justifies the exception. Reject validation that only reports a leaf object/syntax build when a project-level configure/build/test entrypoint exists and was not attempted; if a full build cannot run, the author must show the exact failed command and blocker.

Do not apply code changes in this pass.

Return a short markdown review report. The first non-empty line must be exactly one of:

RESULT: ok
RESULT: fix-needed

If you choose `RESULT: fix-needed`, add a `## Findings` section with concrete, actionable items.

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem

Fixer flagged `/usr/bin/perl -wT /usr/sbin/munin-node --foreground` as a likely busy poll loop. The retained evidence does not tie the native `select()`/`pselect6()` frames to a Perl source line, and the strace excerpt shows blocking waits of about 1.8-2.0 seconds with process state `S (sleeping)` and only `0.9%` CPU. That looks more like normal `munin-node`/`Net::Server::Fork` idle waiting than a proven runaway loop.

## Evidence Confidence

inferred

## Proposed Subject

No source patch yet: document this as an inconclusive/likely false-positive profiler finding for `munin-node` unless an independent reproduction captures a Perl-level stack or a tight nonblocking poll loop.

## Patch Plan

Do not edit source on this pass. The evidence is profiler/native-stack only and explicitly lacks a Perl-level stack, so a PR-ready munin patch is not justified.

If later evidence proves an application loop, investigate from `script/munin-node` into `lib/Munin/Node/Server.pm` first, not Perl runtime code. Runtime investigation should remain secondary unless the reproduced trace proves Perl mishandles a blocking wait.

Follow Munin conventions found in `CONTRIBUTING.md` and `HACKING.pod`: strict/warnings Perl style, local file style, no unnecessary wrapping, and use existing helpers. Relevant local helpers/conventions are `Munin::Common::Timeout::do_with_timeout`, `Munin::Common::Logger`, `Munin::Node::Server::_net_read/_net_write`, TLS wrappers, and `Munin::Node::OS->run_as_child`. The existing node request path already uses `do_with_timeout`.

No prior Fixer patch is present in this workspace to improve or replace. If a future patch is warranted, keep it bounded with ordinary returns/conditionals; do not introduce avoidable `goto`.

## Risks

Patching from the current evidence would risk changing idle server behavior, connection handling, or timeout semantics without a demonstrated bug. This area includes timeout behavior, so any source change would need reproduced behavior and impact analysis before editing.

A local sandbox reproduction may not match the production sample because the raw investigation artifacts are not present in the workspace and the evidence bundle retained only excerpts.

## Validation

Before any focused check, try the project-level entrypoint from the workspace root:

`make`

`make check` only if a check target is available; this Makefile does not define one, so use the project test target:

`make test`

For a bounded independent reproduction attempt, use Munin’s documented dev wrappers from `HACKING.pod`: build/install a sandbox with `./dev_scripts/install clean node`, start `munin-node` via `./dev_scripts/run munin-node --foreground` or `./dev_scripts/start_munin-node`, then sample `ps -o pid,stat,pcpu,etime,wchan,args` and, if available, `strace -ttT -f -e trace=pselect6,select,poll,ppoll` for a short window. Only claim reproduction if that shows rapid poll returns or a Perl-level stack tied to the loop; blocking 2-second `pselect6` timeouts should be reported as non-reproduction.

## Patch Pass

Subject: Diagnose munin-node poll finding as inconclusive

## Commit Message

No source change is included. The collected signal points at an idle `munin-node` process blocked in `select`/`pselect6`, but it does not include a Perl-level stack or a local reproduction that ties the samples to a source bug.

## Evidence Confidence

inferred

## Issue Connection

The collected signal was `/usr/bin/perl -wT /usr/sbin/munin-node --foreground` sampled in native `select()`/`pselect6()` frames and classified as a likely busy poll loop. The same evidence shows `pselect6` calls blocking for about 1.8-2.0 seconds, process state `S (sleeping)`, `wchan` at `poll_schedule_timeout`, and only `0.9%` CPU, so the cautious inference is that an idle `munin-node` wait was misclassified as a tight poll loop.

I inspected the Perl entrypoint first, as required for interpreter processes: `script/munin-node` delegates to `Munin::Node::Server`, which uses `Net::Server::Fork`; request processing already uses the local `Munin::Common::Timeout::do_with_timeout` helper and `Munin::Common::Logger`, and nearby child process handling uses `Munin::Node::OS->run_as_child`. I also checked `CONTRIBUTING.md` and `HACKING.pod`; no local helper or maintainer convention suggests a small source change that would address the observed samples.

No patch was made because changing timing/throttling or server wait behavior from this indirect evidence would not be pull-request-ready. The expected effect of this report is to give upstream a clear diagnosis and the next evidence needed: a Perl-level stack or syscall trace showing rapid nonblocking poll returns before changing `munin-node` or Perl runtime code.

## Git Add Paths

None

## Validation

`make` failed before build generation because `Module::Build` is missing:

`Can't locate Module/Build.pm in @INC ... at Build.PL line 80.`

`make check` failed because this Makefile has no `check` target:

`make: *** No rule to make target 'check'. Stop.`

`make test` hit the same `Module::Build` blocker as `make`.

Focused checks run after the project-level blocker:

`perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node` passed.

`perl -Ilib -c lib/Munin/Node/Server.pm` passed.

`perl -Ilib -c lib/Munin/Node/OS.pm` passed, with redefinition warnings from the module’s circular load path.

Independent reproduction was attempted with a temporary high-port `munin-node` config. `strace` could not run because ptrace is blocked: `PTRACE_TRACEME: Operation not permitted`. A fallback `ps` smoke attempt could not keep the server running because binding even the high test port failed: `Cannot bind and listen to TCP port 14949 on * [Operation not permitted]`. The failure was not reproduced locally.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: ok

No source changes are present in the workspace, so there is no patch diff to reject. The response correctly treats the evidence as `inferred`, keeps `Git Add Paths` as `None`, avoids claiming reproduction, and explains why the profiler/strace signal is not enough for an upstream source patch.

Validation reporting is acceptable: project-level `make`, `make check`, and `make test` were attempted or accounted for with exact blockers, followed by focused syntax checks and a bounded reproduction attempt that was blocked by ptrace and port-binding restrictions.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior, treat it as security-sensitive: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the security impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis; otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout. The latest author response is at `./patch-output.txt`. Inspect the current code and changed paths like a strict code reviewer. Focus on correctness, regressions, maintainability, awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto`, missing validation, weak or non-gittable commit message text, and explanations that fail to connect the observed issue evidence to the code change. Also review the maintainer experience: the patch mail should be easy to accept upstream, the user-visible bug should be explained in plain language, subsystem-specific jargon should be defined when first used, and any non-obvious state translation or index remapping in code should have a short explanatory comment. Reject patches that omit `## Evidence Confidence`, use anything other than `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`, or sound more certain than that evidence level allows. Reject patches that claim `reproduced` unless `## Validation` names the concrete reproduction command or test and its result. Reject source patches in security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior unless the author reproduced the behavior and explicitly analyzed the security impact of the change; observed-only evidence should become a diagnosis/report, not a PR-ready source diff. Reject patches that invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure not present in the evidence bundle; indirect profiler or strace evidence may justify a cautious mitigation, but the author must say it is indirect instead of presenting it as a confirmed upstream bug. Reject patches that introduce generic libc/std APIs when nearby code or project docs provide a local compat/helper API for the same job, unless the author explicitly justifies the exception. Reject validation that only reports a leaf object/syntax build when a project-level configure/build/test entrypoint exists and was not attempted; if a full build cannot run, the author must show the exact failed command and blocker.

Do not apply code changes in this pass.

Return a short markdown review report. The first non-empty line must be exactly one of:

RESULT: ok
RESULT: fix-needed

If you choose `RESULT: fix-needed`, add a `## Findings` section with concrete, actionable items.

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem
Fixer reported `/usr/bin/perl -wT /usr/sbin/munin-node --foreground` in a suspected busy poll loop, but the captured signal shows `munin-node` sleeping in `pselect6` with roughly 1.8-2.0 second timeouts, process state `S`, and only `0.9%` sampled CPU. `munin-node` is implemented as `Munin::Node::Server` on `Net::Server::Fork`, whose accept loop uses `IO::Select->can_read(2)`, matching the observed two-second poll-family syscall cadence.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Proposed Subject
No source patch: report/close as an unsupported runaway-CPU finding unless additional evidence shows rapid, non-blocking wakeups or a Perl-level stack inside Munin application logic.

## Patch Plan
Do not edit Munin source from this evidence alone. The evidence bundle does not prove a Munin bug: it lacks a Perl-level stack, the raw artifact paths are unavailable in this workspace, and the visible syscall timings are consistent with normal idle `Net::Server::Fork` listener behavior rather than a tight loop.

If a later patch is justified, first collect extra evidence: a live `strace -ttT` or equivalent showing repeated near-zero-duration `pselect6`/`select` returns, plus a Perl-level stack tying the loop to `script/munin-node` or `lib/Munin/Node/Server.pm`. Only then plan a bounded change around `Munin::Node::Server` using existing helpers and conventions: `Munin::Common::Timeout` for transaction timeouts, `Munin::Common::Logger` for logging, and `Munin::Node::OS->run_as_child` for plugin execution. No relevant local helper for replacing the `Net::Server::Fork` accept wait was found.

No prior Fixer patch for this issue was found in `debian/patches` or the workspace. Avoid awkward control flow such as adding `goto` or ad hoc sleep loops; any future mitigation should be a small, direct change in the responsible loop or configuration path.

## Risks
Patching now would likely change normal daemon accept behavior based on profiler-only evidence. That could reduce responsiveness, alter Net::Server semantics, or mask the real issue if the hot loop is in a plugin, TLS handshake, client behavior, or the Perl/runtime/kernel profiling path.

## Validation
Project-level validation attempted from workspace root:

`make` failed before build because `Module::Build.pm` is missing at `Build.PL line 80`.

`make check` is unavailable: `make: *** No rule to make target 'check'. Stop.`

Focused checks that do not require generated files passed:

`perl -c lib/Munin/Common/Timeout.pm`
`perl -c lib/Munin/Node/Session.pm`

Bounded independent syscall reproduction was attempted with `strace`, but ptrace is blocked in this environment: `PTRACE_TRACEME: Operation not permitted`. Static inspection of installed `Net::Server::Fork` shows the relevant idle accept wait is `can_read(2)`, matching the observed two-second `pselect6` cadence.

## Patch Pass

Subject: Diagnose munin-node select samples as idle listener evidence

## Commit Message
No source change was made. The likely root cause of the collected signal is normal idle waiting in `munin-node`’s inherited `Net::Server::Fork` accept loop, not a proven busy loop: `/proc` reported the process sleeping, strace showed `pselect6` timing out after about two seconds, and the installed `Net::Server::Fork` code waits with `IO::Select->can_read(2)`.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
Fixer observed `/usr/bin/perl -wT /usr/sbin/munin-node --foreground` with repeated `pselect6` samples and classified it as a likely busy poll loop. The collected details also show process state `S (sleeping)`, `wchan` in `poll_schedule_timeout`, low sampled CPU (`0.9%`), and `pselect6` calls blocking for roughly 1.8-2.0 seconds.

I inspected the Perl entrypoint (`script/munin-node`) before considering the Perl runtime. The code-level explanation is that `Munin::Node::Server` inherits from `Net::Server::Fork`, and that runtime’s accept loop polls listening sockets with a two-second `IO::Select->can_read(2)` timeout. That matches the collected syscall cadence and does not by itself show a runaway Munin loop.

Following the saved plan, I made no source change. The evidence lacks a Perl-level stack or a trace showing near-zero-duration select wakeups tied to Munin application logic, so a source patch would be speculative rather than upstream-ready. The expected effect is to avoid changing stable daemon accept behavior until stronger evidence identifies a real Munin-side defect.

I checked contribution guidance in `CONTRIBUTING.md` and `HACKING.pod`. Relevant local helpers/conventions found were `Munin::Common::Timeout` for transaction timeouts, `Munin::Common::Logger` for logging, `Munin::Common::Daemon` for daemon readiness, and `Munin::Node::OS->run_as_child` for plugin process execution. No relevant local helper was found for replacing the inherited `Net::Server::Fork` idle accept wait.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
`make` from the workspace root failed before building because `Module::Build.pm` is missing:

`Can't locate Module/Build.pm in @INC ... at Build.PL line 80.`

`make check` from the workspace root failed because there is no such target:

`make: *** No rule to make target 'check'. Stop.`

Focused syntax checks that do not require generated build files passed:

`perl -c lib/Munin/Common/Timeout.pm && perl -c lib/Munin/Node/Session.pm`

Bounded independent reproduction was attempted with:

`timeout 5s strace -ttT -e trace=pselect6,select,poll,ppoll perl -MNet::Server::Fork -e '...'`

That was blocked by ptrace restrictions:

`PTRACE_TRACEME: Operation not permitted`

The workspace has no source changes (`git status --short` is clean).

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: ok

No blocking issues found. The first pass leaves no source diff, correctly classifies the evidence as `inferred`, avoids a speculative patch, and reports project-level validation attempts plus the ptrace blocker for independent reproduction. The diagnosis matches the collected `/proc`, strace, and `Net::Server::Fork` accept-loop evidence without overstating it.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior, treat it as security-sensitive: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the security impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis; otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout. The latest author response is at `./patch-output.txt`. Inspect the current code and changed paths like a strict code reviewer. Focus on correctness, regressions, maintainability, awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto`, missing validation, weak or non-gittable commit message text, and explanations that fail to connect the observed issue evidence to the code change. Also review the maintainer experience: the patch mail should be easy to accept upstream, the user-visible bug should be explained in plain language, subsystem-specific jargon should be defined when first used, and any non-obvious state translation or index remapping in code should have a short explanatory comment. Reject patches that omit `## Evidence Confidence`, use anything other than `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`, or sound more certain than that evidence level allows. Reject patches that claim `reproduced` unless `## Validation` names the concrete reproduction command or test and its result. Reject source patches in security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior unless the author reproduced the behavior and explicitly analyzed the security impact of the change; observed-only evidence should become a diagnosis/report, not a PR-ready source diff. Reject patches that invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure not present in the evidence bundle; indirect profiler or strace evidence may justify a cautious mitigation, but the author must say it is indirect instead of presenting it as a confirmed upstream bug. Reject patches that introduce generic libc/std APIs when nearby code or project docs provide a local compat/helper API for the same job, unless the author explicitly justifies the exception. Reject validation that only reports a leaf object/syntax build when a project-level configure/build/test entrypoint exists and was not attempted; if a full build cannot run, the author must show the exact failed command and blocker.

Do not apply code changes in this pass.

Return a short markdown review report. The first non-empty line must be exactly one of:

RESULT: ok
RESULT: fix-needed

If you choose `RESULT: fix-needed`, add a `## Findings` section with concrete, actionable items.

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem
Fixer reported `/usr/bin/perl -wT /usr/sbin/munin-node --foreground` in a suspected busy poll loop, but the captured signal shows `munin-node` sleeping in `pselect6` with roughly 1.8-2.0 second timeouts, process state `S`, and only `0.9%` sampled CPU. `munin-node` is implemented as `Munin::Node::Server` on `Net::Server::Fork`, whose accept loop uses `IO::Select->can_read(2)`, matching the observed two-second poll-family syscall cadence.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Proposed Subject
No source patch: report/close as an unsupported runaway-CPU finding unless additional evidence shows rapid, non-blocking wakeups or a Perl-level stack inside Munin application logic.

## Patch Plan
Do not edit Munin source from this evidence alone. The evidence bundle does not prove a Munin bug: it lacks a Perl-level stack, the raw artifact paths are unavailable in this workspace, and the visible syscall timings are consistent with normal idle `Net::Server::Fork` listener behavior rather than a tight loop.

If a later patch is justified, first collect extra evidence: a live `strace -ttT` or equivalent showing repeated near-zero-duration `pselect6`/`select` returns, plus a Perl-level stack tying the loop to `script/munin-node` or `lib/Munin/Node/Server.pm`. Only then plan a bounded change around `Munin::Node::Server` using existing helpers and conventions: `Munin::Common::Timeout` for transaction timeouts, `Munin::Common::Logger` for logging, and `Munin::Node::OS->run_as_child` for plugin execution. No relevant local helper for replacing the `Net::Server::Fork` accept wait was found.

No prior Fixer patch for this issue was found in `debian/patches` or the workspace. Avoid awkward control flow such as adding `goto` or ad hoc sleep loops; any future mitigation should be a small, direct change in the responsible loop or configuration path.

## Risks
Patching now would likely change normal daemon accept behavior based on profiler-only evidence. That could reduce responsiveness, alter Net::Server semantics, or mask the real issue if the hot loop is in a plugin, TLS handshake, client behavior, or the Perl/runtime/kernel profiling path.

## Validation
Project-level validation attempted from workspace root:

`make` failed before build because `Module::Build.pm` is missing at `Build.PL line 80`.

`make check` is unavailable: `make: *** No rule to make target 'check'. Stop.`

Focused checks that do not require generated files passed:

`perl -c lib/Munin/Common/Timeout.pm`
`perl -c lib/Munin/Node/Session.pm`

Bounded independent syscall reproduction was attempted with `strace`, but ptrace is blocked in this environment: `PTRACE_TRACEME: Operation not permitted`. Static inspection of installed `Net::Server::Fork` shows the relevant idle accept wait is `can_read(2)`, matching the observed two-second `pselect6` cadence.

## Patch Pass

Subject: Diagnose munin-node select samples as idle listener evidence

## Commit Message
No source change was made. The likely root cause of the collected signal is normal idle waiting in `munin-node`’s inherited `Net::Server::Fork` accept loop, not a proven busy loop: `/proc` reported the process sleeping, strace showed `pselect6` timing out after about two seconds, and the installed `Net::Server::Fork` code waits with `IO::Select->can_read(2)`.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
Fixer observed `/usr/bin/perl -wT /usr/sbin/munin-node --foreground` with repeated `pselect6` samples and classified it as a likely busy poll loop. The collected details also show process state `S (sleeping)`, `wchan` in `poll_schedule_timeout`, low sampled CPU (`0.9%`), and `pselect6` calls blocking for roughly 1.8-2.0 seconds.

I inspected the Perl entrypoint (`script/munin-node`) before considering the Perl runtime. The code-level explanation is that `Munin::Node::Server` inherits from `Net::Server::Fork`, and that runtime’s accept loop polls listening sockets with a two-second `IO::Select->can_read(2)` timeout. That matches the collected syscall cadence and does not by itself show a runaway Munin loop.

Following the saved plan, I made no source change. The evidence lacks a Perl-level stack or a trace showing near-zero-duration select wakeups tied to Munin application logic, so a source patch would be speculative rather than upstream-ready. The expected effect is to avoid changing stable daemon accept behavior until stronger evidence identifies a real Munin-side defect.

I checked contribution guidance in `CONTRIBUTING.md` and `HACKING.pod`. Relevant local helpers/conventions found were `Munin::Common::Timeout` for transaction timeouts, `Munin::Common::Logger` for logging, `Munin::Common::Daemon` for daemon readiness, and `Munin::Node::OS->run_as_child` for plugin process execution. No relevant local helper was found for replacing the inherited `Net::Server::Fork` idle accept wait.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
`make` from the workspace root failed before building because `Module::Build.pm` is missing:

`Can't locate Module/Build.pm in @INC ... at Build.PL line 80.`

`make check` from the workspace root failed because there is no such target:

`make: *** No rule to make target 'check'. Stop.`

Focused syntax checks that do not require generated build files passed:

`perl -c lib/Munin/Common/Timeout.pm && perl -c lib/Munin/Node/Session.pm`

Bounded independent reproduction was attempted with:

`timeout 5s strace -ttT -e trace=pselect6,select,poll,ppoll perl -MNet::Server::Fork -e '...'`

That was blocked by ptrace restrictions:

`PTRACE_TRACEME: Operation not permitted`

The workspace has no source changes (`git status --short` is clean).

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: ok

No blocking issues found. The first pass leaves no source diff, correctly classifies the evidence as `inferred`, avoids a speculative patch, and reports project-level validation attempts plus the ptrace blocker for independent reproduction. The diagnosis matches the collected `/proc`, strace, and `Net::Server::Fork` accept-loop evidence without overstating it.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior, treat it as security-sensitive: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the security impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis; otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout. The latest author response is at `./patch-output.txt`. Inspect the current code and changed paths like a strict code reviewer. Focus on correctness, regressions, maintainability, awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto`, missing validation, weak or non-gittable commit message text, and explanations that fail to connect the observed issue evidence to the code change. Also review the maintainer experience: the patch mail should be easy to accept upstream, the user-visible bug should be explained in plain language, subsystem-specific jargon should be defined when first used, and any non-obvious state translation or index remapping in code should have a short explanatory comment. Reject patches that omit `## Evidence Confidence`, use anything other than `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`, or sound more certain than that evidence level allows. Reject patches that claim `reproduced` unless `## Validation` names the concrete reproduction command or test and its result. Reject source patches in security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior unless the author reproduced the behavior and explicitly analyzed the security impact of the change; observed-only evidence should become a diagnosis/report, not a PR-ready source diff. Reject patches that invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure not present in the evidence bundle; indirect profiler or strace evidence may justify a cautious mitigation, but the author must say it is indirect instead of presenting it as a confirmed upstream bug. Reject patches that introduce generic libc/std APIs when nearby code or project docs provide a local compat/helper API for the same job, unless the author explicitly justifies the exception. Reject validation that only reports a leaf object/syntax build when a project-level configure/build/test entrypoint exists and was not attempted; if a full build cannot run, the author must show the exact failed command and blocker.

Do not apply code changes in this pass.

Return a short markdown review report. The first non-empty line must be exactly one of:

RESULT: ok
RESULT: fix-needed

If you choose `RESULT: fix-needed`, add a `## Findings` section with concrete, actionable items.

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem
Fixer observed `/usr/bin/perl -wT /usr/sbin/munin-node --foreground` in repeated `pselect6`, but the retained evidence shows `munin-node` sleeping in `poll_schedule_timeout` with ~1.8-2.0s timeouts and only 0.9% CPU. There is no retained Perl-level stack tying the samples to a Munin source line, and the raw investigation files are not available in this workspace.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Proposed Subject
No source patch yet: diagnose `munin-node` idle polling evidence before changing timing behavior.

## Patch Plan
Do not edit Munin in this pass. A source patch would touch listener timing/throttling behavior, which is security-sensitive under the instructions, and the current evidence does not reproduce or prove a harmful busy loop.

If more evidence is collected later, start from `script/munin-node` and `lib/Munin/Node/Server.pm`, not Perl runtime internals. The relevant local conventions are `use strict; use warnings;`, taint-compatible script execution, `Munin::Common::Logger` for logging, `Munin::Common::Timeout` for bounded operations, and `Munin::Node::OS->run_as_child` for plugin process handling. The listener itself is delegated to `Net::Server::Fork`; I found no Munin-local file IO, socket accept, or event-loop wrapper to replace it.

No prior Fixer patch is present in the workspace. If a future patch is justified, keep it upstream-style in the Munin node subsystem, avoid awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto`, and prefer a small bounded change through existing Net::Server configuration/hooks over hand-rolled polling.

## Risks
Changing the accept loop or timeout cadence without reproduction could increase latency, mask signal handling, affect child reaping, or alter daemon availability. The evidence currently looks compatible with normal timed blocking rather than runaway CPU, so a speculative mitigation would not be pull-request-ready.

## Validation
Tried project-level entrypoints from the workspace root:

`make` failed before build: `Can't locate Module/Build.pm in @INC` from `Build.PL`.
`make check` failed: no `check` target exists.

Focused fallback checks:
`perl -T -c -Ilib script/munin-node` passed.
`perl -c -Ilib lib/Munin/Node/Server.pm` passed.

Bounded reproduction attempts:
`strace ... munin-node` could not run because ptrace is not permitted in the sandbox.
A temporary foreground `munin-node` smoke run could not bind a high localhost port: `Cannot bind and listen ... [Operation not permitted]`.

Before any source patch, collect a real Perl-level stack or syscall trace from a running affected `munin-node`, for example the evidence bundle’s suggested `strace -ttT -f ... -p <pid>` plus a Perl/module-level stack if available.

## Patch Pass

Subject: No patch: diagnose munin-node pselect evidence

## Commit Message
No source change is proposed. The collected signal looks like an idle `munin-node` process blocked in the listener wait path, not a confirmed runaway CPU bug: `/proc` reported the process as sleeping, `wchan` was `poll_schedule_timeout`, and strace showed only three `pselect6` calls over five seconds with ~2 second blocking durations.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
Fixer collected a perf/strace signal from `/usr/bin/perl -wT /usr/sbin/munin-node --foreground` and classified it as a likely busy poll loop. The retained evidence does not include a Perl-level stack or reproducible command tying the wait to a Munin source line, and the available `/proc` and strace excerpts point to timed blocking rather than rapid polling.

I inspected the Perl script entrypoint, `script/munin-node`, before considering the Perl runtime. The entrypoint delegates the daemon accept loop to `Munin::Node::Server`, which subclasses `Net::Server::Fork`; nearby Munin code uses `Munin::Common::Logger`, `Munin::Common::Timeout`, and `Munin::Node::OS->run_as_child` for logging, bounded operations, and plugin subprocesses. I found no Munin-local event-loop wrapper that would fit a safer narrow change.

I made no source change. A patch here would alter listener timing/throttling behavior, which requires reproduced evidence and security-impact analysis under the proposal rules. The expected effect is that this avoids an upstream-unready timing change and leaves a concrete report: collect a Perl-level stack or attach-time syscall trace from an affected live `munin-node` before patching.

This follows the saved plan in `plan-output.txt`; I did not change course.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
Project-level validation from workspace root:

`make` failed because `Module::Build.pm` is missing:
`Can't locate Module/Build.pm in @INC ... at Build.PL line 80.`

`make check` failed because this tree has no `check` target:
`make: *** No rule to make target 'check'. Stop.`

Focused checks run instead:

`perl -T -c -Ilib script/munin-node` passed.

`perl -c -Ilib lib/Munin/Node/Server.pm` passed.

Bounded independent reproduction attempts:

`strace -ttT -f -e trace=pselect6,select,poll,ppoll,epoll_wait,nanosleep,clock_nanosleep perl -T -Ilib script/munin-node ...` was blocked by sandbox ptrace restrictions:
`PTRACE_TRACEME: Operation not permitted`.

A foreground `munin-node` smoke run with temporary config could not bind localhost in this sandbox:
`Cannot bind and listen to TCP port 49494 on 127.0.0.1 [Operation not permitted]`.

`git diff --stat` produced no output, confirming no source diff was left.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: ok

No source diff is present, and the author correctly treated the evidence as `inferred` rather than landing a timing/throttling change without local reproduction. The response reads as a no-patch diagnosis, ties the evidence to `munin-node`’s `Net::Server::Fork` listener path, names relevant local conventions/helpers, and reports project-level validation attempts with exact blockers.

The validation also includes bounded reproduction attempts and keeps confidence below `reproduced` because both syscall tracing and local socket binding were blocked. This is appropriate for the evidence bundle and security-sensitive timing behavior.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior, treat it as security-sensitive: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the security impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis; otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout. The latest author response is at `./patch-output.txt`. Inspect the current code and changed paths like a strict code reviewer. Focus on correctness, regressions, maintainability, awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto`, missing validation, weak or non-gittable commit message text, and explanations that fail to connect the observed issue evidence to the code change. Also review the maintainer experience: the patch mail should be easy to accept upstream, the user-visible bug should be explained in plain language, subsystem-specific jargon should be defined when first used, and any non-obvious state translation or index remapping in code should have a short explanatory comment. Reject patches that omit `## Evidence Confidence`, use anything other than `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`, or sound more certain than that evidence level allows. Reject patches that claim `reproduced` unless `## Validation` names the concrete reproduction command or test and its result. Reject source patches in security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior unless the author reproduced the behavior and explicitly analyzed the security impact of the change; observed-only evidence should become a diagnosis/report, not a PR-ready source diff. Reject patches that invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure not present in the evidence bundle; indirect profiler or strace evidence may justify a cautious mitigation, but the author must say it is indirect instead of presenting it as a confirmed upstream bug. Reject patches that introduce generic libc/std APIs when nearby code or project docs provide a local compat/helper API for the same job, unless the author explicitly justifies the exception. Reject validation that only reports a leaf object/syntax build when a project-level configure/build/test entrypoint exists and was not attempted; if a full build cannot run, the author must show the exact failed command and blocker.

Do not apply code changes in this pass.

Return a short markdown review report. The first non-empty line must be exactly one of:

RESULT: ok
RESULT: fix-needed

If you choose `RESULT: fix-needed`, add a `## Findings` section with concrete, actionable items.

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem
Fixer observed `/usr/bin/perl -wT /usr/sbin/munin-node --foreground` in repeated `pselect6`, but the retained evidence shows `munin-node` sleeping in `poll_schedule_timeout` with ~1.8-2.0s timeouts and only 0.9% CPU. There is no retained Perl-level stack tying the samples to a Munin source line, and the raw investigation files are not available in this workspace.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Proposed Subject
No source patch yet: diagnose `munin-node` idle polling evidence before changing timing behavior.

## Patch Plan
Do not edit Munin in this pass. A source patch would touch listener timing/throttling behavior, which is security-sensitive under the instructions, and the current evidence does not reproduce or prove a harmful busy loop.

If more evidence is collected later, start from `script/munin-node` and `lib/Munin/Node/Server.pm`, not Perl runtime internals. The relevant local conventions are `use strict; use warnings;`, taint-compatible script execution, `Munin::Common::Logger` for logging, `Munin::Common::Timeout` for bounded operations, and `Munin::Node::OS->run_as_child` for plugin process handling. The listener itself is delegated to `Net::Server::Fork`; I found no Munin-local file IO, socket accept, or event-loop wrapper to replace it.

No prior Fixer patch is present in the workspace. If a future patch is justified, keep it upstream-style in the Munin node subsystem, avoid awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto`, and prefer a small bounded change through existing Net::Server configuration/hooks over hand-rolled polling.

## Risks
Changing the accept loop or timeout cadence without reproduction could increase latency, mask signal handling, affect child reaping, or alter daemon availability. The evidence currently looks compatible with normal timed blocking rather than runaway CPU, so a speculative mitigation would not be pull-request-ready.

## Validation
Tried project-level entrypoints from the workspace root:

`make` failed before build: `Can't locate Module/Build.pm in @INC` from `Build.PL`.
`make check` failed: no `check` target exists.

Focused fallback checks:
`perl -T -c -Ilib script/munin-node` passed.
`perl -c -Ilib lib/Munin/Node/Server.pm` passed.

Bounded reproduction attempts:
`strace ... munin-node` could not run because ptrace is not permitted in the sandbox.
A temporary foreground `munin-node` smoke run could not bind a high localhost port: `Cannot bind and listen ... [Operation not permitted]`.

Before any source patch, collect a real Perl-level stack or syscall trace from a running affected `munin-node`, for example the evidence bundle’s suggested `strace -ttT -f ... -p <pid>` plus a Perl/module-level stack if available.

## Patch Pass

Subject: No patch: diagnose munin-node pselect evidence

## Commit Message
No source change is proposed. The collected signal looks like an idle `munin-node` process blocked in the listener wait path, not a confirmed runaway CPU bug: `/proc` reported the process as sleeping, `wchan` was `poll_schedule_timeout`, and strace showed only three `pselect6` calls over five seconds with ~2 second blocking durations.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
Fixer collected a perf/strace signal from `/usr/bin/perl -wT /usr/sbin/munin-node --foreground` and classified it as a likely busy poll loop. The retained evidence does not include a Perl-level stack or reproducible command tying the wait to a Munin source line, and the available `/proc` and strace excerpts point to timed blocking rather than rapid polling.

I inspected the Perl script entrypoint, `script/munin-node`, before considering the Perl runtime. The entrypoint delegates the daemon accept loop to `Munin::Node::Server`, which subclasses `Net::Server::Fork`; nearby Munin code uses `Munin::Common::Logger`, `Munin::Common::Timeout`, and `Munin::Node::OS->run_as_child` for logging, bounded operations, and plugin subprocesses. I found no Munin-local event-loop wrapper that would fit a safer narrow change.

I made no source change. A patch here would alter listener timing/throttling behavior, which requires reproduced evidence and security-impact analysis under the proposal rules. The expected effect is that this avoids an upstream-unready timing change and leaves a concrete report: collect a Perl-level stack or attach-time syscall trace from an affected live `munin-node` before patching.

This follows the saved plan in `plan-output.txt`; I did not change course.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
Project-level validation from workspace root:

`make` failed because `Module::Build.pm` is missing:
`Can't locate Module/Build.pm in @INC ... at Build.PL line 80.`

`make check` failed because this tree has no `check` target:
`make: *** No rule to make target 'check'. Stop.`

Focused checks run instead:

`perl -T -c -Ilib script/munin-node` passed.

`perl -c -Ilib lib/Munin/Node/Server.pm` passed.

Bounded independent reproduction attempts:

`strace -ttT -f -e trace=pselect6,select,poll,ppoll,epoll_wait,nanosleep,clock_nanosleep perl -T -Ilib script/munin-node ...` was blocked by sandbox ptrace restrictions:
`PTRACE_TRACEME: Operation not permitted`.

A foreground `munin-node` smoke run with temporary config could not bind localhost in this sandbox:
`Cannot bind and listen to TCP port 49494 on 127.0.0.1 [Operation not permitted]`.

`git diff --stat` produced no output, confirming no source diff was left.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: ok

No source diff is present, and the author correctly treated the evidence as `inferred` rather than landing a timing/throttling change without local reproduction. The response reads as a no-patch diagnosis, ties the evidence to `munin-node`’s `Net::Server::Fork` listener path, names relevant local conventions/helpers, and reports project-level validation attempts with exact blockers.

The validation also includes bounded reproduction attempts and keeps confidence below `reproduced` because both syscall tracing and local socket binding were blocked. This is appropriate for the evidence bundle and security-sensitive timing behavior.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior, treat it as security-sensitive: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the security impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis; otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout. The latest author response is at `./patch-output.txt`. Inspect the current code and changed paths like a strict code reviewer. Focus on correctness, regressions, maintainability, awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto`, missing validation, weak or non-gittable commit message text, and explanations that fail to connect the observed issue evidence to the code change. Also review the maintainer experience: the patch mail should be easy to accept upstream, the user-visible bug should be explained in plain language, subsystem-specific jargon should be defined when first used, and any non-obvious state translation or index remapping in code should have a short explanatory comment. Reject patches that omit `## Evidence Confidence`, use anything other than `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`, or sound more certain than that evidence level allows. Reject patches that claim `reproduced` unless `## Validation` names the concrete reproduction command or test and its result. Reject source patches in security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior unless the author reproduced the behavior and explicitly analyzed the security impact of the change; observed-only evidence should become a diagnosis/report, not a PR-ready source diff. Reject patches that invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure not present in the evidence bundle; indirect profiler or strace evidence may justify a cautious mitigation, but the author must say it is indirect instead of presenting it as a confirmed upstream bug. Reject patches that introduce generic libc/std APIs when nearby code or project docs provide a local compat/helper API for the same job, unless the author explicitly justifies the exception. Reject validation that only reports a leaf object/syntax build when a project-level configure/build/test entrypoint exists and was not attempted; if a full build cannot run, the author must show the exact failed command and blocker.

Do not apply code changes in this pass.

Return a short markdown review report. The first non-empty line must be exactly one of:

RESULT: ok
RESULT: fix-needed

If you choose `RESULT: fix-needed`, add a `## Findings` section with concrete, actionable items.

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem
Fixer observed `/usr/bin/perl -wT /usr/sbin/munin-node --foreground` in `pselect6`, but the retained evidence does not prove a Munin busy loop. The strace excerpt shows roughly 1.8s and 2.0s blocking timeouts, process state was sleeping, and sampled CPU was only 0.9%. `munin-node` enters `Net::Server::Fork` from `script/munin-node`; Munin’s request work is in `Munin::Node::Server`, while plugin child IO uses a separate blocking `select` in `Munin::Node::OS`.

## Evidence Confidence
observed

## Proposed Subject
No source patch yet: diagnose `munin-node` idle `pselect6` evidence before changing event-loop or timeout behavior.

## Patch Plan
Do not edit code unless an independent reproduction shows high CPU with rapid poll wakeups or a Perl-level stack tied to Munin code. The current evidence looks more like the normal `Net::Server::Fork` idle accept loop than runaway CPU.

If extra evidence does show a Munin-side loop, inspect the exact stack first and keep any change bounded to the implicated subsystem:
- `script/munin-node` server startup and foreground handling.
- `lib/Munin/Node/Server.pm` request loop, using existing `Munin::Common::Timeout`, `Munin::Common::Logger`, and `Munin::Common::Daemon` conventions.
- `lib/Munin/Node/OS.pm` only if plugin child pipe reading is actually implicated.

Follow `CONTRIBUTING.md` and `HACKING.pod`: strict/warnings Perl, taint-mode awareness, no avoidable awkward control flow such as a `goto`, file-local indentation style, and present-tense maintainer-facing explanation. No relevant local helper exists for the `Net::Server::Fork` idle accept loop itself; relevant local helpers found are `Munin::Common::Timeout`, `Munin::Common::Logger`, `Munin::Common::Daemon::emit_sd_notify_message`, and `Munin::Node::OS` process helpers.

No prior Fixer patch was found in this workspace to improve or replace.

## Risks
Changing idle polling or timeout behavior without reproduction would risk altering daemon responsiveness, request handling, or service-manager readiness semantics. Timing/throttling behavior is security-sensitive per the instructions, so a source patch is blocked until validation can reproduce the behavior and characterize the impact.

## Validation
Before any focused check, try project-level entrypoints from the workspace root: `make`, then `make check` if present; this Makefile appears to expose `make test` rather than `check`, so use `make test` as the project-level test command.

Bounded independent reproduction attempt before editing: run `munin-node` from the workspace with a temporary config and empty plugin directory under `timeout` plus `strace -ttT -f -e trace=pselect6,select,poll,ppoll` and sample `ps -o stat,pcpu,wchan,args`. Only claim reproduction if it shows rapid nonblocking poll/select wakeups with meaningful CPU; if it only shows ~2s sleeps like the evidence bundle, report no patch-ready Munin bug.

## Patch Pass

Subject: Diagnose munin-node idle select evidence

## Commit Message
No source change is included. The likely root cause of the collected signal is normal `munin-node` idle waiting in `Net::Server::Fork`, not a confirmed busy loop: the process was sleeping, `wchan` was a poll timeout path, CPU was 0.9%, and strace showed `pselect6` blocking for about two seconds.

## Evidence Confidence
observed

## Issue Connection
Fixer observed `/usr/bin/perl -wT /usr/sbin/munin-node --foreground` with native frames under `select()`/`pselect6`, but this was not independently reproduced. The direct collected signal is a short perf/strace/proc snapshot; it does not include a Perl-level stack tying a tight loop to Munin code.

I inspected the interpreter entrypoint first (`script/munin-node`) and the relevant Munin node modules (`Munin::Node::Server`, `Munin::Node::OS`) rather than treating Perl itself as the target. `munin-node` hands its listener loop to `Net::Server::Fork`; Munin’s local helpers around this area are `Munin::Common::Timeout`, `Munin::Common::Logger`, `Munin::Common::Daemon::emit_sd_notify_message`, and `Munin::Node::OS` process helpers. I found no Munin wrapper for the `Net::Server::Fork` idle accept loop itself.

Following the saved plan, I did not leave a source diff. Any attempted fix here would change timing/listener behavior based on a signal that looks like normal blocking idle wait, and timing/throttling changes require reproduced evidence plus impact analysis.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
`make` from the workspace root failed before building because `Module::Build` is missing:
`Can't locate Module/Build.pm in @INC ... at Build.PL line 80. BEGIN failed--compilation aborted ... make: *** [Makefile:149: Build] Error 2`.

`make -n check` failed because this Makefile has no `check` target:
`make: *** No rule to make target 'check'. Stop.`

`make test` hit the same `Module::Build` blocker as `make`.

Focused checks:
`perl -T -Ilib -c lib/Munin/Node/Server.pm` passed.
`perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node` passed.
`perl -T -Ilib -c lib/Munin/Node/OS.pm` reported redefinition warnings, then `syntax OK`.

Independent reproduction attempt:
`timeout 7s strace -ttT -f -e trace=pselect6,select,poll,ppoll perl -T -Ilib script/munin-node --foreground ...` was blocked by sandbox ptrace restrictions: `PTRACE_TRACEME: Operation not permitted`.

A non-strace foreground smoke with a temporary config also could not bind a local TCP listener in this sandbox:
`Cannot bind and listen to TCP port 14949 on 127.0.0.1 [Operation not permitted]`.

I therefore could not reproduce the claimed busy poll locally, and left no patch.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: ok

No source changes are present in the workspace; `git diff` is empty and a direct comparison against the original snapshot only shows workspace metadata directories (`.git`, `.agents`, `.codex`). The no-patch diagnosis is appropriate for the evidence level.

The author response includes the required sections, uses a valid `observed` confidence label, avoids claiming local reproduction, and explains why a timing/listener change would be unsafe without stronger evidence. It also documents the relevant Munin conventions and helpers (`Munin::Common::Timeout`, `Munin::Common::Logger`, `Munin::Common::Daemon::emit_sd_notify_message`, `Munin::Node::OS`) and correctly treats the Perl script entrypoint before considering the runtime.

Validation is acceptable for a no-patch pass: `make` and `make test` were attempted and blocked by missing `Module::Build`, `make check` was checked and found unavailable, focused taint-mode syntax checks were run, and the independent reproduction attempt was blocked by sandbox ptrace/network restrictions rather than omitted.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior, treat it as security-sensitive: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the security impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis; otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout. The latest author response is at `./patch-output.txt`. Inspect the current code and changed paths like a strict code reviewer. Focus on correctness, regressions, maintainability, awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto`, missing validation, weak or non-gittable commit message text, and explanations that fail to connect the observed issue evidence to the code change. Also review the maintainer experience: the patch mail should be easy to accept upstream, the user-visible bug should be explained in plain language, subsystem-specific jargon should be defined when first used, and any non-obvious state translation or index remapping in code should have a short explanatory comment. Reject patches that omit `## Evidence Confidence`, use anything other than `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`, or sound more certain than that evidence level allows. Reject patches that claim `reproduced` unless `## Validation` names the concrete reproduction command or test and its result. Reject source patches in security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior unless the author reproduced the behavior and explicitly analyzed the security impact of the change; observed-only evidence should become a diagnosis/report, not a PR-ready source diff. Reject patches that invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure not present in the evidence bundle; indirect profiler or strace evidence may justify a cautious mitigation, but the author must say it is indirect instead of presenting it as a confirmed upstream bug. Reject patches that introduce generic libc/std APIs when nearby code or project docs provide a local compat/helper API for the same job, unless the author explicitly justifies the exception. Reject validation that only reports a leaf object/syntax build when a project-level configure/build/test entrypoint exists and was not attempted; if a full build cannot run, the author must show the exact failed command and blocker.

Do not apply code changes in this pass.

Return a short markdown review report. The first non-empty line must be exactly one of:

RESULT: ok
RESULT: fix-needed

If you choose `RESULT: fix-needed`, add a `## Findings` section with concrete, actionable items.

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem
Fixer observed `/usr/bin/perl -wT /usr/sbin/munin-node --foreground` in `pselect6`, but the retained evidence does not prove a Munin busy loop. The strace excerpt shows roughly 1.8s and 2.0s blocking timeouts, process state was sleeping, and sampled CPU was only 0.9%. `munin-node` enters `Net::Server::Fork` from `script/munin-node`; Munin’s request work is in `Munin::Node::Server`, while plugin child IO uses a separate blocking `select` in `Munin::Node::OS`.

## Evidence Confidence
observed

## Proposed Subject
No source patch yet: diagnose `munin-node` idle `pselect6` evidence before changing event-loop or timeout behavior.

## Patch Plan
Do not edit code unless an independent reproduction shows high CPU with rapid poll wakeups or a Perl-level stack tied to Munin code. The current evidence looks more like the normal `Net::Server::Fork` idle accept loop than runaway CPU.

If extra evidence does show a Munin-side loop, inspect the exact stack first and keep any change bounded to the implicated subsystem:
- `script/munin-node` server startup and foreground handling.
- `lib/Munin/Node/Server.pm` request loop, using existing `Munin::Common::Timeout`, `Munin::Common::Logger`, and `Munin::Common::Daemon` conventions.
- `lib/Munin/Node/OS.pm` only if plugin child pipe reading is actually implicated.

Follow `CONTRIBUTING.md` and `HACKING.pod`: strict/warnings Perl, taint-mode awareness, no avoidable awkward control flow such as a `goto`, file-local indentation style, and present-tense maintainer-facing explanation. No relevant local helper exists for the `Net::Server::Fork` idle accept loop itself; relevant local helpers found are `Munin::Common::Timeout`, `Munin::Common::Logger`, `Munin::Common::Daemon::emit_sd_notify_message`, and `Munin::Node::OS` process helpers.

No prior Fixer patch was found in this workspace to improve or replace.

## Risks
Changing idle polling or timeout behavior without reproduction would risk altering daemon responsiveness, request handling, or service-manager readiness semantics. Timing/throttling behavior is security-sensitive per the instructions, so a source patch is blocked until validation can reproduce the behavior and characterize the impact.

## Validation
Before any focused check, try project-level entrypoints from the workspace root: `make`, then `make check` if present; this Makefile appears to expose `make test` rather than `check`, so use `make test` as the project-level test command.

Bounded independent reproduction attempt before editing: run `munin-node` from the workspace with a temporary config and empty plugin directory under `timeout` plus `strace -ttT -f -e trace=pselect6,select,poll,ppoll` and sample `ps -o stat,pcpu,wchan,args`. Only claim reproduction if it shows rapid nonblocking poll/select wakeups with meaningful CPU; if it only shows ~2s sleeps like the evidence bundle, report no patch-ready Munin bug.

## Patch Pass

Subject: Diagnose munin-node idle select evidence

## Commit Message
No source change is included. The likely root cause of the collected signal is normal `munin-node` idle waiting in `Net::Server::Fork`, not a confirmed busy loop: the process was sleeping, `wchan` was a poll timeout path, CPU was 0.9%, and strace showed `pselect6` blocking for about two seconds.

## Evidence Confidence
observed

## Issue Connection
Fixer observed `/usr/bin/perl -wT /usr/sbin/munin-node --foreground` with native frames under `select()`/`pselect6`, but this was not independently reproduced. The direct collected signal is a short perf/strace/proc snapshot; it does not include a Perl-level stack tying a tight loop to Munin code.

I inspected the interpreter entrypoint first (`script/munin-node`) and the relevant Munin node modules (`Munin::Node::Server`, `Munin::Node::OS`) rather than treating Perl itself as the target. `munin-node` hands its listener loop to `Net::Server::Fork`; Munin’s local helpers around this area are `Munin::Common::Timeout`, `Munin::Common::Logger`, `Munin::Common::Daemon::emit_sd_notify_message`, and `Munin::Node::OS` process helpers. I found no Munin wrapper for the `Net::Server::Fork` idle accept loop itself.

Following the saved plan, I did not leave a source diff. Any attempted fix here would change timing/listener behavior based on a signal that looks like normal blocking idle wait, and timing/throttling changes require reproduced evidence plus impact analysis.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
`make` from the workspace root failed before building because `Module::Build` is missing:
`Can't locate Module/Build.pm in @INC ... at Build.PL line 80. BEGIN failed--compilation aborted ... make: *** [Makefile:149: Build] Error 2`.

`make -n check` failed because this Makefile has no `check` target:
`make: *** No rule to make target 'check'. Stop.`

`make test` hit the same `Module::Build` blocker as `make`.

Focused checks:
`perl -T -Ilib -c lib/Munin/Node/Server.pm` passed.
`perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node` passed.
`perl -T -Ilib -c lib/Munin/Node/OS.pm` reported redefinition warnings, then `syntax OK`.

Independent reproduction attempt:
`timeout 7s strace -ttT -f -e trace=pselect6,select,poll,ppoll perl -T -Ilib script/munin-node --foreground ...` was blocked by sandbox ptrace restrictions: `PTRACE_TRACEME: Operation not permitted`.

A non-strace foreground smoke with a temporary config also could not bind a local TCP listener in this sandbox:
`Cannot bind and listen to TCP port 14949 on 127.0.0.1 [Operation not permitted]`.

I therefore could not reproduce the claimed busy poll locally, and left no patch.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: ok

No source changes are present in the workspace; `git diff` is empty and a direct comparison against the original snapshot only shows workspace metadata directories (`.git`, `.agents`, `.codex`). The no-patch diagnosis is appropriate for the evidence level.

The author response includes the required sections, uses a valid `observed` confidence label, avoids claiming local reproduction, and explains why a timing/listener change would be unsafe without stronger evidence. It also documents the relevant Munin conventions and helpers (`Munin::Common::Timeout`, `Munin::Common::Logger`, `Munin::Common::Daemon::emit_sd_notify_message`, `Munin::Node::OS`) and correctly treats the Perl script entrypoint before considering the runtime.

Validation is acceptable for a no-patch pass: `make` and `make test` were attempted and blocked by missing `Module::Build`, `make check` was checked and found unavailable, focused taint-mode syntax checks were run, and the independent reproduction attempt was blocked by sandbox ptrace/network restrictions rather than omitted.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior, treat it as security-sensitive: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the security impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis; otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout. The latest author response is at `./patch-output.txt`. Inspect the current code and changed paths like a strict code reviewer. Focus on correctness, regressions, maintainability, awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto`, missing validation, weak or non-gittable commit message text, and explanations that fail to connect the observed issue evidence to the code change. Also review the maintainer experience: the patch mail should be easy to accept upstream, the user-visible bug should be explained in plain language, subsystem-specific jargon should be defined when first used, and any non-obvious state translation or index remapping in code should have a short explanatory comment. Reject patches that omit `## Evidence Confidence`, use anything other than `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`, or sound more certain than that evidence level allows. Reject patches that claim `reproduced` unless `## Validation` names the concrete reproduction command or test and its result. Reject source patches in security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior unless the author reproduced the behavior and explicitly analyzed the security impact of the change; observed-only evidence should become a diagnosis/report, not a PR-ready source diff. Reject patches that invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure not present in the evidence bundle; indirect profiler or strace evidence may justify a cautious mitigation, but the author must say it is indirect instead of presenting it as a confirmed upstream bug. Reject patches that introduce generic libc/std APIs when nearby code or project docs provide a local compat/helper API for the same job, unless the author explicitly justifies the exception. Reject validation that only reports a leaf object/syntax build when a project-level configure/build/test entrypoint exists and was not attempted; if a full build cannot run, the author must show the exact failed command and blocker.

Do not apply code changes in this pass.

Return a short markdown review report. The first non-empty line must be exactly one of:

RESULT: ok
RESULT: fix-needed

If you choose `RESULT: fix-needed`, add a `## Findings` section with concrete, actionable items.

Response

## Plan Pass

## Problem
Fixer observed `/usr/bin/perl -wT /usr/sbin/munin-node --foreground` in a poll-family syscall loop, but the retained evidence does not prove runaway CPU in Munin code. The strace excerpt shows `pselect6` timing out after ~1.8s and ~2.0s, process state is `S (sleeping)`, `wchan` is `poll_schedule_timeout`, and sampled CPU was only 0.9%.

## Evidence Confidence
observed

## Proposed Subject
No source patch: treat the report as an idle `munin-node`/`Net::Server::Fork` wait observation, not a confirmed Munin busy-loop bug.

## Patch Plan
Do not edit files in this pass. The entrypoint `script/munin-node` delegates the accept loop to `Munin::Node::Server`, which subclasses `Net::Server::Fork`; nearby Munin helpers are `Munin::Common::Timeout` for bounded request/plugin work and `Munin::Node::OS->_read_from_child` for plugin pipe `select`, but the evidence points at the server idle wait, not those helpers.

A PR-ready source patch would need extra evidence first: a Perl-level stack, a live strace showing rapid zero-duration polling, or a bounded reproduction with elevated CPU tied to Munin code. Without that, changing timeouts or server control flow would be speculative. No prior Fixer patch is present to improve or replace, and no awkward `goto`-style control flow change should be introduced.

## Risks
Patching based on this evidence could regress normal daemon responsiveness or Net::Server behavior while “fixing” expected idle waiting. The evidence was collected from an interpreter process and lacks a Perl stack, so a runtime or dependency behavior cannot be ruled in, but the script entrypoint remains the first investigation target.

## Validation
Project-level entrypoint tried from workspace root: `make`. It failed before building because `Module::Build` is missing: `Can't locate Module/Build.pm in @INC ... at Build.PL line 80`, then `make: *** [Makefile:149: Build] Error 2`.

`make check` is not available: `No rule to make target 'check'`.

Focused check tried: `perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node`, which reported `script/munin-node syntax OK`, but it used the installed `Munin::Common::Defaults` because generated `lib/Munin/Common/Defaults.pm` is absent before build.

Bounded follow-up reproduction, before any patch: run `munin-node --foreground` under `timeout` and `strace` for poll syscalls, and only call it reproduced if it shows rapid non-blocking `pselect6` plus elevated CPU. Current evidence does not show that.

## Patch Pass

Subject: Diagnose munin-node idle poll evidence

## Commit Message
No source change is included. The collected evidence points to `munin-node` idling in the `Net::Server::Fork` accept loop, not to a confirmed Munin busy loop. A patch would need a Perl-level stack or a local reproduction showing rapid non-blocking polling with elevated CPU.

## Evidence Confidence
inferred

## Issue Connection
Fixer collected perf, strace, and `/proc` evidence for `/usr/bin/perl -wT /usr/sbin/munin-node --foreground`. The key signal was repeated `pselect6`, but the recorded calls blocked for about 1.8 to 2.0 seconds, `/proc` reported state `S (sleeping)`, `wchan` was `poll_schedule_timeout`, and CPU was about 0.9%.

The likely root cause is a false-positive “busy poll” classification of normal daemon idle waiting. `script/munin-node` hands server execution to `Munin::Node::Server`, which subclasses `Net::Server::Fork`; request work is separately bounded with `Munin::Common::Timeout`, and plugin child IO uses `Munin::Node::OS`. I did not find evidence tying the sampled wait to a Munin application loop or to a Perl runtime bug.

I followed the saved plan’s no-patch direction. I changed only the confidence label from the plan’s `observed` to `inferred` because this authoring pass explicitly treats profiler/strace-only evidence as indirect unless a failure is independently reproduced. The expected effect is no upstream behavior change until stronger evidence identifies a real code-level defect.

## Git Add Paths
None

## Validation
`make` from the workspace root failed before building:
`Can't locate Module/Build.pm in @INC ... at Build.PL line 80`
then:
`make: *** [Makefile:149: Build] Error 2`

`make check` is not available:
`make: *** No rule to make target 'check'. Stop.`

Focused syntax check:
`perl -T -Ilib -c script/munin-node`
reported:
`script/munin-node syntax OK`
This was limited because generated `lib/Munin/Common/Defaults.pm` is absent before a successful build, so Perl used the installed Munin defaults module.

Independent reproduction attempt:
`strace` smoke tracing was blocked by sandbox ptrace restrictions:
`PTRACE_TRACEME: Operation not permitted`.

A foreground `munin-node` smoke run with temporary empty plugin/config directories was also blocked before idle sampling because binding a high localhost TCP port failed:
`Cannot bind and listen to TCP port 14949 on 127.0.0.1 [Operation not permitted]`.

No failure was locally reproduced.

## Review Pass 1

RESULT: ok

No source changes are present in the workspace, and the no-patch diagnosis is appropriate for the evidence level. The author did not overclaim reproduction, used a valid `## Evidence Confidence` value, and kept `## Git Add Paths` as `None`.

The write-up connects the collected `pselect6`, sleeping state, `wchan`, and low CPU evidence to the cautious conclusion that this is likely normal `munin-node` idle waiting through `Net::Server::Fork`, not a confirmed Munin busy loop. It also names relevant local helpers and conventions: `Munin::Common::Timeout`, `Munin::Node::OS`, and the `Net::Server::Fork` subsystem.

Validation is acceptable for a no-patch report: `make` was attempted and failed on missing `Module::Build`, `make check` was attempted and is not a target, a focused taint-mode syntax check was run, and independent reproduction attempts were reported with concrete sandbox blockers.

Prompt

## Plan Pass

You are planning a fixer patch before any edits happen.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` if you need to inspect it. For interpreter processes, plan from the script/application entrypoint evidence first and include the runtime only as a second investigation target unless the evidence proves a runtime bug.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround. Inspect the relevant code, nearby callers, project contribution docs, and local helper/compat APIs, but do not edit files in this pass.

Return a short markdown plan with these exact sections:

## Problem
## Evidence Confidence
## Proposed Subject
## Patch Plan
## Risks
## Validation

Classify `## Evidence Confidence` as exactly one of `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `inferred` only for a no-patch diagnosis/report plan unless you can name the extra evidence you will collect before editing; inferred source patches are blocked by Fixer because they are not pull-request-ready. For `observed` source-patch plans, plan to say in the final `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the plan touches authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior, treat it as security-sensitive: do not plan a source patch unless validation can reproduce the behavior and analyze the security impact; otherwise plan a no-patch diagnosis/report. The plan must explain how the proposed code change addresses the observed issue evidence, call out any prior Fixer patch that should be improved or replaced, reject awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto` if there is a cleaner bounded alternative, name any local helper APIs or maintainer conventions the patch should follow, and keep the intended maintainer-facing explanation clear enough that someone unfamiliar with the local complaint wording can still follow the fix. In `## Validation`, name the reproducible configure/build/test entrypoint you will try from the workspace root before any focused leaf compile or smoke check, and include one bounded independent reproduction attempt for the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap. Do not plan to claim `reproduced` unless that reproduction command or test can actually show the failure.

## Patch Pass

You are working on a bounded fixer proposal.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Produce the smallest reasonable patch for the target repository, keep the change upstreamable, prefer the clearest control flow available, and do not keep avoidable `goto` when a simpler structure would read better. Before introducing new file, process, allocation, locking, networking, or platform APIs, inspect nearby code and project contribution docs for existing helpers or compatibility wrappers and use those local patterns unless you can explain why they do not fit. Validate from a reproducible workspace-root entrypoint before falling back to focused leaf commands; if a build or test cannot run, report the exact command, the exact blocker, and any narrower check you ran instead. During validation, also try one bounded independent reproduction of the collected failure signal when it is safe and cheap, such as a failing test, smoke command, perf/strace comparison, or before/after runtime check. Only use `reproduced` if that command or test actually reproduced the failure; otherwise keep `observed` and report the reproduction blocker. The final explanation must connect the observed issue evidence to the actual code change, not just paraphrase the diff. Write like a maintainer is going to read the patch mail cold: explain the bug in plain language, define subsystem-specific jargon the first time you need it, and make the causal story obvious. Explicitly classify evidence confidence as `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`: `reproduced` means you reproduced the failure locally; `observed` means Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it; `inferred` means the source patch is not pull-request-ready, so do not leave a source diff unless you first gather stronger observed/reproduced evidence; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report. For any source-changing `observed` patch, say explicitly in `## Issue Connection` that the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior need reproduced evidence plus explicit security-impact analysis before leaving a source diff; otherwise return a no-patch diagnosis/report for human review. If you introduce non-obvious state translation, index remapping, or backend split logic, add a short source comment that explains the invariant being preserved.

Start by explaining the likely root cause from the collected perf, strace, and /proc evidence. If you cannot land a safe patch, leave a diagnosis that is strong enough for an upstream bug report.

Interpreter process expectation: when the hot process is Python, Perl, shell, Node, Ruby, PHP, Lua, or another interpreter, inspect both the runtime and the script/application entrypoint from `details.interpreter_process`. Prefer the script or application package when evidence points there; do not patch the interpreter runtime merely because the hot binary is `python`, `perl`, `bash`, or similar. Runtime fixes are welcome only after checking the entrypoint and explaining why the runtime mishandles the workload or why running bad code faster/safer is itself the right upstream fix.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround. 

Keep the change narrowly scoped and summarize validation clearly.

In every authoring pass, your final response must start with `Subject: <single-line git commit subject>` and then include these markdown sections exactly:

## Commit Message
A short upstream-friendly explanation of what changed and why. Write it in plain language that a maintainer can follow without local complaint context. If you use subsystem jargon, define it immediately.

## Evidence Confidence
Exactly one word: `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`. Use `reproduced` only when you reproduced the failure locally with a command or test, and include that command/test in `## Validation`. Use `observed` when Fixer has direct crash/log/trace evidence but you did not independently reproduce it. If `## Git Add Paths` lists source files for an `observed` patch, `## Issue Connection` must explicitly say the failure was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. Security-sensitive source changes touching authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, or timing/throttling behavior require reproduced evidence and explicit security-impact analysis; otherwise list `None` under `## Git Add Paths` and write a no-patch diagnosis/report. Use `inferred` for profiler/strace/indirect evidence; inferred responses may be no-patch diagnoses or reports, but inferred source patches are not pull-request-ready until stronger evidence is gathered.

## Issue Connection
Write this as maintainer-facing patch mail, not as local Fixer notes. Cover four things explicitly in readable sentences: the user-visible symptom or the exact collected signal, the code-level cause or the cautious inference from evidence, the specific change you made, and the expected effect. Do not invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure that is not present in the evidence bundle. If the evidence is direct-but-not-reproduced, say it was observed by Fixer and not independently reproduced. If the evidence is indirect and you did not gather stronger evidence, do not leave a source diff; write a no-patch diagnosis/report instead. Include an explicit effect sentence such as `The expected effect is ...`, `This should reduce ...`, or `This prevents ...` for source patches. If the logic is non-obvious in code, mention that you added a short explanatory comment.

## Git Add Paths
List the repo-relative paths that belong in the final patch, one per line. Use `None` only when you intentionally made no source changes. Include intentionally new files, and do not list generated build artifacts.

## Validation
List the checks you ran, or say clearly that you could not run them. Include the independent reproduction command/test and result when `## Evidence Confidence` is `reproduced`; if reproduction was attempted but blocked, name the exact blocker and keep confidence at `observed` or `inferred`.

Before editing, read the plan at `./plan-output.txt` and follow it unless the code proves part of it wrong. If you change course, say so explicitly in the final write-up instead of silently drifting from the plan.

## Review Pass 1

You are reviewing a freshly generated fixer patch.

Read the evidence bundle at `./evidence.json`. The prepared workspace is `./workspace` and it was acquired via `debian-source`. Review the first patch pass. The original pre-edit snapshot is available at `./source` for diffing.

Upstream-style expectation: before planning or editing, check for contribution/style docs (`CONTRIBUTING`, `HACKING`, `README-hacking`, `README.md`, `docs/`, `dev-docs/`) and scan the touched subsystem for local helpers. If the project has wrappers for file IO, path-relative IO, process spawning, memory allocation, logging, locking, or platform compatibility, prefer those wrappers over generic libc/std APIs. Do not invent a reproducer or user-visible failure that is not in the evidence bundle; if the evidence is profiler-only or indirect, describe it as a targeted mitigation or stop with a diagnosis instead of presenting a speculative patch as a confirmed bug fix. In the plan and final validation, name any such helper, convention, or evidence limit you found, or say that no relevant local helper was found. Treat this as a `munin` upstream patch, not just a Debian-local workaround.

Validation expectation: try the project-level build/test entrypoint from the workspace root before reporting only a focused leaf compile. Detected candidate(s): `make` and, if available, `make check`. If the project-level command fails because dependencies or generated files are missing, include the exact command and failure reason in `## Validation`, then run the narrowest relevant compile/test that is still reproducible from a clean checkout. The latest author response is at `./patch-output.txt`. Inspect the current code and changed paths like a strict code reviewer. Focus on correctness, regressions, maintainability, awkward control flow such as avoidable `goto`, missing validation, weak or non-gittable commit message text, and explanations that fail to connect the observed issue evidence to the code change. Also review the maintainer experience: the patch mail should be easy to accept upstream, the user-visible bug should be explained in plain language, subsystem-specific jargon should be defined when first used, and any non-obvious state translation or index remapping in code should have a short explanatory comment. Reject patches that omit `## Evidence Confidence`, use anything other than `reproduced`, `observed`, or `inferred`, or sound more certain than that evidence level allows. Reject patches that claim `reproduced` unless `## Validation` names the concrete reproduction command or test and its result. Reject source patches in security-sensitive areas such as authentication, authorization, credentials, cryptography, sandboxing, permissions, and timing/throttling behavior unless the author reproduced the behavior and explicitly analyzed the security impact of the change; observed-only evidence should become a diagnosis/report, not a PR-ready source diff. Reject patches that invent a reproducer, command line, crash, or user-visible failure not present in the evidence bundle; indirect profiler or strace evidence may justify a cautious mitigation, but the author must say it is indirect instead of presenting it as a confirmed upstream bug. Reject patches that introduce generic libc/std APIs when nearby code or project docs provide a local compat/helper API for the same job, unless the author explicitly justifies the exception. Reject validation that only reports a leaf object/syntax build when a project-level configure/build/test entrypoint exists and was not attempted; if a full build cannot run, the author must show the exact failed command and blocker.

Do not apply code changes in this pass.

Return a short markdown review report. The first non-empty line must be exactly one of:

RESULT: ok
RESULT: fix-needed

If you choose `RESULT: fix-needed`, add a `## Findings` section with concrete, actionable items.