test(picklescan): isolate reduce operand attribution check

[mldangelo-oai]

Summary

• isolate the REDUCE operand-attribution assertion from unrelated shared source-snapshot stability
• preserve dedicated source-stability coverage while keeping this security signal deterministic on Windows

Evidence

• Nightly CI run 33355862429 failed only this test on Windows: expected COMPLETE, received INCONCLUSIVE
• the report remains fail-closed; this test is scoped to DANGEROUS_GLOBAL versus DANGEROUS_CALL attribution

Validation

• focused picklescan API tests: 4 passed
• ruff check tests/test_api.py
• ruff format --check tests/test_api.py
• mypy tests/test_api.py could not complete because the preinstalled mypy 1.20.2 hit an internal error before project diagnostics

[mldangelo-oai]

@codex review

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Codex Review Summary

This comment shows the latest Codex review activity on this pull request.

Review	Status	Commit	Review trigger
📝 Code Review	✅ Completed 2026-08-31T22:08:19.546742Z	c8bb3c1	Manual request
🔒 Security Review	✅ Completed 2026-08-31T22:09:36.619786Z	c8bb3c1	Manual request

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review" or "@codex security review".

Codex reacts with 👀 while any review is running, comments if it has suggestions, and reacts with 👍 once all reviews finish with no findings.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. 🎉

Reviewed commit: c8bb3c14e5

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

[github-actions]

Workflow run and artifacts

Performance Benchmarks

Compared 13 shared benchmarks with a regression threshold of 15%.
Status: 0 regressions, 0 improved, 13 stable, 0 new, 0 missing.
Aggregate shared-benchmark median: 4.300s -> 4.278s (-0.5%).

Workload	Benchmark	Target	Size	Files	Baseline	Current	Change	Status
nested-payload-review	tests/benchmarks/test_picklescan_benchmarks.py::test_picklescan_nested_payload_review[nested_hex]	nested_hex	130 B	1	297.9us	270.0us	-9.4%	stable
direct-malicious-upload	tests/benchmarks/test_picklescan_benchmarks.py::test_picklescan_direct_malicious_upload	malicious_reduce	52 B	1	198.4us	192.5us	-3.0%	stable
nested-payload-review	tests/benchmarks/test_picklescan_benchmarks.py::test_picklescan_nested_payload_review[nested_raw]	nested_raw	78 B	1	249.1us	242.5us	-2.7%	stable
warm-cache-rescan	tests/benchmarks/test_scan_benchmarks.py::test_scan_warm_cached_repository_rescan	release-candidate	547.3 KiB	32	140.51ms	136.99ms	-2.5%	stable
nested-payload-review	tests/benchmarks/test_picklescan_benchmarks.py::test_picklescan_nested_payload_review[nested_base64]	nested_base64	98 B	1	263.3us	260.8us	-1.0%	stable
rejected-basic-auth-candidates	tests/benchmarks/test_scan_benchmarks.py::test_rejected_basic_auth_candidates_scan_linearly	-	371.1 KiB	1	2.439s	2.417s	-0.9%	stable
padded-multi-stream-upload	tests/benchmarks/test_picklescan_benchmarks.py::test_picklescan_padded_multi_stream_upload	multi_stream_padded	4.1 KiB	1	319.9us	317.2us	-0.8%	stable
suspicious-pickle-intake	tests/benchmarks/test_scan_benchmarks.py::test_scan_suspicious_pickle_intake	suspicious-intake	183.8 KiB	4	147.68ms	148.88ms	+0.8%	stable
single-checkpoint-preflight	tests/benchmarks/test_scan_benchmarks.py::test_scan_single_checkpoint_before_load	single_checkpoint.pkl	183.0 KiB	1	107.11ms	106.37ms	-0.7%	stable
mixed-model-repository	tests/benchmarks/test_scan_benchmarks.py::test_scan_release_candidate_repository	release-candidate	547.3 KiB	32	645.94ms	650.19ms	+0.7%	stable
clean-training-checkpoint	tests/benchmarks/test_picklescan_benchmarks.py::test_picklescan_clean_training_checkpoint	safe_large	278.2 KiB	1	115.23ms	115.69ms	+0.4%	stable
duplicate-heavy-registry	tests/benchmarks/test_scan_benchmarks.py::test_scan_duplicate_registry_snapshot	registry-snapshot	915.2 KiB	13	584.26ms	583.10ms	-0.2%	stable
chunked-upload-stream	tests/benchmarks/test_picklescan_benchmarks.py::test_picklescan_chunked_upload_stream	chunked_stream	278.2 KiB	1	118.70ms	118.57ms	-0.1%	stable

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Security review completed. No security issues were found in this pull request.

Reviewed commit: c8bb3c14e5

View security finding report

Only the user who started this review can view the report in Codex.

ℹ️ About Codex security reviews in GitHub

This is an experimental Codex feature. Security reviews are triggered when:

• You comment "@codex security review"
• A regular code review gets triggered (for example, "@codex review" or when a PR is opened), and you’re opted in so security review runs alongside code review

Once complete, Codex will leave suggestions, or a comment if no findings are found.