Hi, First things first, I think the auto-triage system is great for pruning low-quality PRs from the maintainer/committer review queue so that genuine contributors are not drowned out. So I must commend the project for introducing it.
That being said, I’ve noticed that some PRs end up in a “needs maintainer consensus / architectural decision” state rather than having concrete author-actionable issues. In those cases, the auto-triage agent can repeatedly surface secondary issues while missing the real blocker, which creates a slightly misleading signal for contributors. I hit this on one of my Kubernetes PRs where the underlying issue was really maintainer alignment rather than unresolved implementation problems. Maybe it would help to introduce a category like 'pending maintainer consensus” (ormore general 'misc' category) so the tooling can distinguish between contributor follow-up and PRs that are effectively waiting on reviewer direction. I understand that with the volume of PRs nowadays, there is only so much that can be done and perhaps this has already been brought up before. But the main pain point (or at least what I have personally experienced) is false negatives. This is more of an annoyance than a major blocker but I was just curious if something could be done on the tooling side to alleviate this issue. Thanks, Sameer Mesiah.
