chore: Update CODEOWNERS

[flashinfer-bot]

Summary

This PR updates the CODEOWNERS file based on git commit history analysis from the last 180 days.

Changes

• Updated .github/CODEOWNERS with current code ownership based on:
  • Commit frequency
  • File coverage
  • Commit recency

How to Review

1. Review the changes to .github/CODEOWNERS
2. Verify that the assigned owners are appropriate for each module
3. Make manual adjustments if needed before merging

Notes

• This is an automated PR generated weekly
• Minimum commits threshold: 1
• Analysis period: 180 days
• Directory depth: 3 levels
• Top N owners per module: 5

---

🤖 This PR was automatically generated by the update-codeowners workflow

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Chores
  • Updated code ownership configuration for internal repository maintenance.

_{✏️ Tip: You can customize this high-level summary in your review settings.}

[gemini-code-assist]

Summary of Changes

Hello @flashinfer-bot, I'm Gemini Code Assist¹! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!

This pull request ensures that the project's code ownership is accurately reflected in the .github/CODEOWNERS file. By automating this process weekly, it maintains up-to-date assignments based on recent development activity, streamlining code review assignments and ensuring accountability.

Highlights

• Automated CODEOWNERS Update: This pull request automatically updates the .github/CODEOWNERS file based on a recent analysis of commit history over the last 180 days.
• Ownership Criteria: The ownership analysis considers factors such as commit frequency, file coverage, and commit recency to determine the most appropriate code owners for each module.
• Minor Reordering: The specific change in this PR involves a minor reordering of two owners for the include/flashinfer/trtllm/ path, reflecting updated ownership based on the analysis.

🧠 New Feature in Public Preview: You can now enable Memory to help Gemini Code Assist learn from your team's feedback. This makes future code reviews more consistent and personalized to your project's style. Click here to enable Memory in your admin console.

Using Gemini Code Assist

The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.

Invoking Gemini

You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands on the current page.

Feature	Command	Description
Code Review	/gemini review	Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state.
Pull Request Summary	/gemini summary	Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state.
Comment	@gemini-code-assist	Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in pull request comments and review comments.
Help	/gemini help	Displays a list of available commands.

Customization

To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.

Limitations & Feedback

Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here.

You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.

Footnotes

1. Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩

[coderabbitai]

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

This change reorders the maintainers in the CODEOWNERS file for the include/flashinfer/trtllm/ directory. The owners joker-eph and IwakuraRein swap positions; no maintainers are added or removed.

Changes

Cohort / File(s)	Summary
CODEOWNERS Maintenance .github/CODEOWNERS	Reordered maintainers for include/flashinfer/trtllm/ path, swapping positions of two existing owners.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 1 (Trivial) | ⏱️ ~2 minutes

Possibly related PRs

• chore: Update CODEOWNERS #1984: Modifies the same CODEOWNERS entry for include/flashinfer/trtllm/, also reordering owners.
• chore: Update CODEOWNERS #2135: Updates CODEOWNERS entries including ownership for include/flashinfer/trtllm/.
• chore: Update CODEOWNERS #2218: Modifies the CODEOWNERS entry for include/flashinfer/trtllm/ as part of broader ownership reordering.

Poem

🐰 A shuffle here, a shuffle there,
Two keepers trade their rightful chair,
The code still safe, the owners clear,
Just rearranged—no need to fear! ✨

Pre-merge checks

❌ Failed checks (1 inconclusive)

Check name	Status	Explanation	Resolution
Description check	❓ Inconclusive	The PR description covers the purpose, changes, and review instructions, but lacks the required checklist sections from the template.	Add the 'Pre-commit Checks' and 'Tests' checklist sections from the template to ensure consistency with repository standards.

✅ Passed checks (2 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Title check	✅ Passed	The title 'chore: Update CODEOWNERS' is clear, concise, and directly reflects the main change in the pull request.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.

---

📜 Recent review details

Configuration used: defaults

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 30203fb and f033c93.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• .github/CODEOWNERS

🧰 Additional context used

🧠 Learnings (1)

📚 Learning: 2025-12-30T09:34:39.900Z

Learnt from: CR
Repo: flashinfer-ai/flashinfer PR: 0
File: CLAUDE.md:0-0
Timestamp: 2025-12-30T09:34:39.900Z
Learning: Applies to include/**/*.cuh : Kernel code in `include/flashinfer/` is automatically picked up by JIT compilation on changes - no pip reinstall needed

Applied to files:

• .github/CODEOWNERS

⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms. You can increase the timeout in your CodeRabbit configuration to a maximum of 15 minutes (900000ms). (1)

• GitHub Check: Deploy Docs

🔇 Additional comments (2)

.github/CODEOWNERS (2)

1-47: All other entries remain unchanged.

Verified that lines 1–45 and 47 remain intact with no unintended modifications. The automated update successfully modified only the target entry.

---

46-46: Cannot verify the reordering claim—this is the initial CODEOWNERS commit with no prior version to compare.

Additionally, neither @IwakuraRein nor @joker-eph has any commits to include/flashinfer/trtllm/ in the last 180 days (only the bot's update exists). The review comment's assertion that the reordering reflects "recent contribution activity" cannot be validated against the actual commit history, as neither maintainer has recent activity in this module.

Recommend removing the suggestion to verify the ordering based on commit patterns, or verifying the owner assignments are still appropriate given the lack of recent activity from these maintainers.

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}

[gemini-code-assist]

Code Review

This pull request contains an automated update to the .github/CODEOWNERS file. The change reorders two owners for the include/flashinfer/trtllm/ path, which aligns with the PR's goal of reflecting recent contribution history. The change is syntactically correct and appears to be functioning as intended by the automation script. I have reviewed the change and found no issues.