mirror of
https://github.com/diegosouzapw/OmniRoute.git
synced 2026-09-06 23:12:09 +03:00
a86b9019a8
The weight table said stability accounts for "low latency stdDev / error rate". Grep errorRate in scoring.ts and you find it declared on ProviderCandidate and read nowhere — while combo.ts pulls 24 hours of usage history behind a ten-sample floor, falls back to real-time metrics, and hands every candidate an errorRate the scorer ignores. Two candidates, one failing 1% of calls and one failing 99%, scored identically at 0.459486. This declares reliability as a sixteenth factor: 1 - failureRate, using the same formula, field precedence and rate-bounding speedRanking.ts already applies, so a corrupt reading means "nothing observed" rather than "fails every call". It ships at weight 0, leaving the ranking unchanged to the digit — the honest default, since which weight this deserves is a product call backed by traffic the author does not have. Two declared-but-silent factors already ship (cacheAffinity, resetWindowAffinity), so the pattern is not new. The stability row now describes what that factor actually computes: latency variance. The rest is the mechanical 15 → 16 across nineteen documents and the forty-two llm.txt mirrors — sourced from check:docs-counts rather than a grep, the first real use of the gate #12316 extended. Protected-surface note: this PR touches AGENTS.md, llm.txt and its 42 mirrors, and skills/omni-combos-routing/SKILL.md. Every changed line in those 45 files is a digit substitution and nothing else — masking all digits makes the removed and added lines identical, with no sentence added, removed or reworded. Reviewed and approved on that basis before merging. Verified on the author's rebased head: check:docs-counts green (the gate that now enforces the count this PR moves), typecheck:core clean, and 71/71 focused tests across scoring-reliability-factor, combo-scoring-weights-schema-coverage, check-docs-counts-sync, lkgp-enabled-context, intelligent-routing-options and the combo-matrix auto integration suite. Thanks @maxmad64bis — shipping the factor at weight 0 and saying plainly that the weight is someone else's call is the right way to land this.