[codex] Plan submission artifact policy foundation#26
Open
Abiorh001 wants to merge 34 commits into
Open
Conversation
|
Note Reviews pausedIt looks like this branch is under active development. To avoid overwhelming you with review comments due to an influx of new commits, CodeRabbit has automatically paused this review. You can configure this behavior by changing the Use the following commands to manage reviews:
Use the checkboxes below for quick actions:
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughThis PR advances the agent loop to ChangesWS-POL-001 Initiative Planning and Documentation
Estimated code review effort🎯 3 (Moderate) | ⏱️ ~25 minutes Possibly related PRs
Poem
🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5✅ Passed checks (5 passed)
✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings. ✨ Finishing Touches🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
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. Comment |
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
.agent-loop/initiatives/WS-POL-001-submission-artifact-policy-foundation/CHUNK_MAP.md (1)
155-158: 🧹 Nitpick | 🔵 Trivial | ⚡ Quick winRefactor repetitive acceptance criteria wording for clarity.
Three successive acceptance criteria sentences in WS-POL-001-03 begin with "Blocking pre-submit failure creates no...". While the criteria are correct and verifiable, restructuring would improve readability without losing meaning.
🔧 Proposed restructuring
Acceptance criteria: -- Blocking pre-submit failure creates no submission row. -- Blocking pre-submit failure creates no submission version. -- Blocking pre-submit failure creates no submitted transition. -- Blocking pre-submit failure creates no durable checker run. +- Blocking pre-submit failure creates no submission row, version, submitted transition, or durable checker run. - Passing pre-submit creates a submission stamped with locked policy context.Alternatively, if preserving line-item structure is preferred:
Acceptance criteria: - Blocking pre-submit failure creates no submission row. - Blocking pre-submit failure creates no submission version. -- Blocking pre-submit failure creates no submitted transition. -- Blocking pre-submit failure creates no durable checker run. +- Pre-submit failure also creates no submitted transition or durable checker run. - Passing pre-submit creates a submission stamped with locked policy context.🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate. In @.agent-loop/initiatives/WS-POL-001-submission-artifact-policy-foundation/CHUNK_MAP.md around lines 155 - 158, The acceptance criteria in the WS-POL-001-03 section contains three consecutive lines that repetitively begin with "Blocking pre-submit failure creates no...", which impacts readability. Restructure these four acceptance criteria by consolidating the common phrase into a single introductory statement followed by a bulleted or enumerated list of the distinct outcomes (submission row, submission version, submitted transition, and durable checker run) to eliminate the repetition while preserving all the meaning and verifiability of the criteria.Source: Linters/SAST tools
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
Nitpick comments:
In
@.agent-loop/initiatives/WS-POL-001-submission-artifact-policy-foundation/CHUNK_MAP.md:
- Around line 155-158: The acceptance criteria in the WS-POL-001-03 section
contains three consecutive lines that repetitively begin with "Blocking
pre-submit failure creates no...", which impacts readability. Restructure these
four acceptance criteria by consolidating the common phrase into a single
introductory statement followed by a bulleted or enumerated list of the distinct
outcomes (submission row, submission version, submitted transition, and durable
checker run) to eliminate the repetition while preserving all the meaning and
verifiability of the criteria.
ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration
Configuration used: defaults
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro Plus
Run ID: 2a3b8fb4-fdba-4243-9f76-339677bd94e5
📒 Files selected for processing (11)
.agent-loop/LOOP_STATE.md.agent-loop/WORK_QUEUE.md.agent-loop/initiatives/WS-POL-001-submission-artifact-policy-foundation/CHUNK_MAP.md.agent-loop/initiatives/WS-POL-001-submission-artifact-policy-foundation/DECISIONS.md.agent-loop/initiatives/WS-POL-001-submission-artifact-policy-foundation/DISCOVERY.md.agent-loop/initiatives/WS-POL-001-submission-artifact-policy-foundation/INTENT.md.agent-loop/initiatives/WS-POL-001-submission-artifact-policy-foundation/PLAN.md.agent-loop/initiatives/WS-POL-001-submission-artifact-policy-foundation/RISKS.md.agent-loop/initiatives/WS-POL-001-submission-artifact-policy-foundation/STATUS.md.agent-loop/initiatives/WS-POL-001-submission-artifact-policy-foundation/chunks/WS-POL-001-01-submission-artifact-policy-foundation.md.agent-loop/initiatives/WS-POL-001-submission-artifact-policy-foundation/reviews/WS-POL-001-01-internal-review-evidence.md
Collaborator
Author
|
@coderabbitai review |
✅ Action performedReview finished.
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
docs/architecture_data_model.md (1)
311-351: 🧹 Nitpick | 🔵 Trivial | ⚡ Quick winPreSubmitCheckerPolicy is properly linked to EffectiveSubmissionArtifactPolicy hash with deterministic generation order.
The field design correctly includes the effective policy hash linkage and generated-at provenance. The deterministic checker order is explicit. The blocking behavior specification (no submission row/version/audit event, no review decision values) is consistent across all documentation.
One implementation note: The data model lists individual fields (checker_names, checker_configs, etc.) but the chunk contract requires the policy to be "persisted, hashed, and locked." Clarify during implementation whether this is a structured schema or an immutable snapshot blob—this affects query strategies for loading locked policies.
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate. In `@docs/architecture_data_model.md` around lines 311 - 351, The PreSubmitCheckerPolicy documentation lists individual fields like checker_names, checker_configs, and blocking_severities, but also specifies the policy must be persisted, hashed, and locked as an immutable snapshot. Clarify in the data model whether PreSubmitCheckerPolicy uses a structured schema with separate columns for each field or stores the entire policy as an immutable blob (like JSONB). This decision impacts query strategies for loading locked policies and how the hash linkage to effective_submission_artifact_policy_hash is validated. Ensure the documentation explicitly states which approach is taken so implementation decisions about schema design and policy retrieval are clear.
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
Inline comments:
In `@docs/decision_0011_submission_artifact_policy_drives_pre_submit.md`:
- Around line 70-86: The decision document describes the required separation
between pre-submit failures and review decision values but lacks verification
that the backend implementation actually enforces this constraint. Add a new
section to this decision document that verifies and documents the three
implementation enforcement points: (1) confirm the API response schemas for
pre_submission_checker_failed responses explicitly prevent inclusion of decision
value fields like accept/needs_revision/reject, (2) verify that any
worker-facing UI components rendering pre-submit results do not display or use
review decision terminology or outcomes, and (3) check that database table
schemas or constraints prevent pre-submit checker result rows from containing
decision value columns or enforce null values for those fields. Reference the
specific backend code locations (API endpoint handlers, response schemas,
database migrations, UI templates) where each enforcement is implemented to
provide concrete evidence supporting the documented separation.
---
Nitpick comments:
In `@docs/architecture_data_model.md`:
- Around line 311-351: The PreSubmitCheckerPolicy documentation lists individual
fields like checker_names, checker_configs, and blocking_severities, but also
specifies the policy must be persisted, hashed, and locked as an immutable
snapshot. Clarify in the data model whether PreSubmitCheckerPolicy uses a
structured schema with separate columns for each field or stores the entire
policy as an immutable blob (like JSONB). This decision impacts query strategies
for loading locked policies and how the hash linkage to
effective_submission_artifact_policy_hash is validated. Ensure the documentation
explicitly states which approach is taken so implementation decisions about
schema design and policy retrieval are clear.
🪄 Autofix (Beta)
Fix all unresolved CodeRabbit comments on this PR:
- Push a commit to this branch (recommended)
- Create a new PR with the fixes
ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration
Configuration used: defaults
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro Plus
Run ID: f0fc67bf-cb4f-4159-a8bd-56401c0de69c
📒 Files selected for processing (32)
.agent-loop/LOOP_STATE.md.agent-loop/initiatives/WS-POL-001-submission-artifact-policy-foundation/CHUNK_MAP.md.agent-loop/initiatives/WS-POL-001-submission-artifact-policy-foundation/DECISIONS.md.agent-loop/initiatives/WS-POL-001-submission-artifact-policy-foundation/DISCOVERY.md.agent-loop/initiatives/WS-POL-001-submission-artifact-policy-foundation/INTENT.md.agent-loop/initiatives/WS-POL-001-submission-artifact-policy-foundation/PLAN.md.agent-loop/initiatives/WS-POL-001-submission-artifact-policy-foundation/RISKS.md.agent-loop/initiatives/WS-POL-001-submission-artifact-policy-foundation/STATUS.md.agent-loop/initiatives/WS-POL-001-submission-artifact-policy-foundation/chunks/WS-POL-001-01-submission-artifact-policy-foundation.md.agent-loop/initiatives/WS-POL-001-submission-artifact-policy-foundation/reviews/WS-POL-001-01-external-review-response.md.agent-loop/initiatives/WS-POL-001-submission-artifact-policy-foundation/reviews/WS-POL-001-01-internal-review-evidence.mddocs/architecture_checker_framework.mddocs/architecture_data_model.mddocs/architecture_lifecycle_state_machine.mddocs/architecture_lockdown.mddocs/current_system_data_flow.htmldocs/decision_0003_project_guides_are_first_class.mddocs/decision_0011_submission_artifact_policy_drives_pre_submit.mddocs/glossary.mddocs/operations_project_operating_manual.mddocs/operations_workspace_packet_convention.mddocs/product_first_user_flows.mddocs/spec_chunk_3_project_guide_foundation.mddocs/spec_chunk_5_submission_packet_foundation.mddocs/spec_chunk_6_checker_contract_records.mddocs/spec_chunk_7_checker_runner_registry.mddocs/spec_chunk_8_submission_artifact_policy_checkers.mddocs/spec_week2_checker_framework.mddocs/template_checker_policy.mddocs/template_project_guide.mddocs/template_submission_artifact_policy.mddocs/template_submission_packet.md
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (14)
- .agent-loop/initiatives/WS-POL-001-submission-artifact-policy-foundation/STATUS.md
- .agent-loop/initiatives/WS-POL-001-submission-artifact-policy-foundation/RISKS.md
- docs/template_submission_packet.md
- docs/operations_workspace_packet_convention.md
- docs/spec_chunk_7_checker_runner_registry.md
- .agent-loop/LOOP_STATE.md
- docs/spec_chunk_8_submission_artifact_policy_checkers.md
- .agent-loop/initiatives/WS-POL-001-submission-artifact-policy-foundation/reviews/WS-POL-001-01-external-review-response.md
- .agent-loop/initiatives/WS-POL-001-submission-artifact-policy-foundation/DECISIONS.md
- docs/current_system_data_flow.html
- .agent-loop/initiatives/WS-POL-001-submission-artifact-policy-foundation/reviews/WS-POL-001-01-internal-review-evidence.md
- docs/spec_chunk_3_project_guide_foundation.md
- .agent-loop/initiatives/WS-POL-001-submission-artifact-policy-foundation/DISCOVERY.md
- .agent-loop/initiatives/WS-POL-001-submission-artifact-policy-foundation/CHUNK_MAP.md
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Caution
Some comments are outside the diff and can’t be posted inline due to platform limitations.
⚠️ Outside diff range comments (1)
docs/architecture_checker_framework.md (1)
201-207: 🎯 Functional Correctness | 🟡 MinorClarify response contract: use actual
PreSubmitCheckResponseschema in documentation.Line 201-207 documents that blocking failures "return
pre_submission_checker_failed", but the actual response schema isPreSubmitCheckResponsewithstatus: Literal["passed", "failed"]andeligible_to_submit: bool. The service returnsPreSubmitCheckResponse(status="failed", eligible_to_submit=False, ...)for blocking failures, not a response type namedpre_submission_checker_failed. Reword to reference the actual schema contract: "...returnPreSubmitCheckResponsewithstatus='failed'andeligible_to_submit=False..." to match the implemented and documented schema.🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate. In `@docs/architecture_checker_framework.md` around lines 201 - 207, In the documentation section describing PreSubmitCheckerPolicy (lines 201-207), the phrase "return `pre_submission_checker_failed`" incorrectly names the response type. Replace this with accurate documentation referencing the actual response schema: reword to state that blocking failures "return `PreSubmitCheckResponse` with `status='failed'` and `eligible_to_submit=False`" to correctly represent the actual response contract with the PreSubmitCheckResponse schema and its status and eligible_to_submit fields.
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
Outside diff comments:
In `@docs/architecture_checker_framework.md`:
- Around line 201-207: In the documentation section describing
PreSubmitCheckerPolicy (lines 201-207), the phrase "return
`pre_submission_checker_failed`" incorrectly names the response type. Replace
this with accurate documentation referencing the actual response schema: reword
to state that blocking failures "return `PreSubmitCheckResponse` with
`status='failed'` and `eligible_to_submit=False`" to correctly represent the
actual response contract with the PreSubmitCheckResponse schema and its status
and eligible_to_submit fields.
ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration
Configuration used: defaults
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro Plus
Run ID: b9620d37-8647-4540-950f-6e0b586cbd79
📒 Files selected for processing (10)
.agent-loop/initiatives/WS-POL-001-submission-artifact-policy-foundation/CHUNK_MAP.md.agent-loop/initiatives/WS-POL-001-submission-artifact-policy-foundation/DECISIONS.md.agent-loop/initiatives/WS-POL-001-submission-artifact-policy-foundation/INTENT.md.agent-loop/initiatives/WS-POL-001-submission-artifact-policy-foundation/PLAN.md.agent-loop/initiatives/WS-POL-001-submission-artifact-policy-foundation/chunks/WS-POL-001-01-submission-artifact-policy-foundation.md.agent-loop/initiatives/WS-POL-001-submission-artifact-policy-foundation/reviews/WS-POL-001-01-external-review-response.md.agent-loop/initiatives/WS-POL-001-submission-artifact-policy-foundation/reviews/WS-POL-001-01-internal-review-evidence.mddocs/architecture_checker_framework.mddocs/architecture_data_model.mddocs/decision_0011_submission_artifact_policy_drives_pre_submit.md
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (7)
- .agent-loop/initiatives/WS-POL-001-submission-artifact-policy-foundation/reviews/WS-POL-001-01-external-review-response.md
- .agent-loop/initiatives/WS-POL-001-submission-artifact-policy-foundation/DECISIONS.md
- .agent-loop/initiatives/WS-POL-001-submission-artifact-policy-foundation/chunks/WS-POL-001-01-submission-artifact-policy-foundation.md
- .agent-loop/initiatives/WS-POL-001-submission-artifact-policy-foundation/INTENT.md
- .agent-loop/initiatives/WS-POL-001-submission-artifact-policy-foundation/CHUNK_MAP.md
- .agent-loop/initiatives/WS-POL-001-submission-artifact-policy-foundation/PLAN.md
- docs/architecture_data_model.md
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (2)
- .agent-loop/initiatives/WS-POL-001-submission-artifact-policy-foundation/reviews/WS-POL-001-01-internal-review-evidence.md
- docs/decision_0011_submission_artifact_policy_drives_pre_submit.md
Collaborator
Author
|
@coderabbitai review |
✅ Action performedReview finished.
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 6
Caution
Some comments are outside the diff and can’t be posted inline due to platform limitations.
⚠️ Outside diff range comments (1)
docs/product_first_user_flows.md (1)
10-25: 🎯 Functional Correctness | 🟡 Minor | ⚡ Quick winRefer to the immutable snapshot, not the guide version.
This step still reads like sufficiency runs against mutable guide data, while the surrounding contract already requires immutable guide-source snapshot semantics.
Proposed fix
- 4. Workstream runs `ProjectGuideSufficiencyAgent` against the guide version. + 4. Workstream runs `ProjectGuideSufficiencyAgent` against the immutable guide-source snapshot.🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate. In `@docs/product_first_user_flows.md` around lines 10 - 25, The sufficiency flow still refers to the mutable guide version, but this step should operate on the immutable guide-source snapshot. Update the wording around ProjectGuideSufficiencyAgent and the acceptance criteria to reference the immutable snapshot semantics explicitly, using the existing terms “guide-source snapshot” and “immutable guide source snapshot” so the contract is consistent and unambiguous.Source: Coding guidelines
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
Inline comments:
In
@.agent-loop/initiatives/WS-POL-001-submission-artifact-policy-foundation/CHUNK_MAP.md:
- Around line 90-92: The chunk map entry uses a shortened policy identifier,
which should match the full name used elsewhere in the plan. Update the relevant
bullet in CHUNK_MAP.md so the identifier is consistent and includes the
“project” qualifier, keeping the same policy name wording across the policy hash
reference and the surrounding artifact policy sections.
In
@.agent-loop/initiatives/WS-POL-001-submission-artifact-policy-foundation/chunks/WS-POL-001-01-submission-artifact-policy-foundation.md:
- Around line 24-26: The policy wording is too vague because “effective project
policy hash” does not clearly identify the artifact being approved. Update the
policy text in the submission-artifact-policy foundation section to name the
submission-artifact-policy hash explicitly, and keep the approval boundary tied
to the bundle approval performed by the Workstream actor with the admin or
project_manager role. Ensure the identifiers used in this section are consistent
with the surrounding terms like guide-source snapshots and guide activation.
In `@docs/architecture_lifecycle_state_machine.md`:
- Around line 75-80: Use one canonical policy name in the READY gate description
to match the model doc. The lifecycle state machine currently references
ProjectSubmissionArtifactPolicy, which conflicts with SubmissionArtifactPolicy
elsewhere; update the READY requirements text to use the same policy identifier
consistently so the gate, persisted hash, and related policy references all
point to the same object.
In `@docs/roadmap_day_by_day_execution_plan.md`:
- Around line 70-71: The activation gate wording is mixing guide activation with
project-scoped prerequisites and should use project activation terminology
consistently. Update the bullet in the roadmap plan so it refers to project
activation and aligns with the rules in
docs/operations_project_operating_manual.md, making it clear that missing guide
snapshot, submission artifact policy, effective project policy hash, post-submit
checker, review, revision, payment policy, or project pre-submit checker policy
hash blocks project activation rather than guide activation.
In `@docs/template_submission_artifact_policy.md`:
- Around line 42-45: The source-material table row is malformed because the
Source Kind placeholder contains unescaped pipe characters, which breaks the
Markdown table structure. Update the table in the artifact policy doc so the
Source Kind placeholder is rendered as a single cell, using an escaped or
otherwise safe representation in the row alongside the existing Durable Ref,
Ingestion Adapter, Content Hash, Content CID, and Media Type columns.
In `@scripts/check_stale_workstream_wording.py`:
- Around line 13-15: The stale-term checks for ApprovedTaskArtifactBinding,
EffectiveTaskSubmissionArtifactPolicy, and ProjectPreSubmitCheckerSpec are
currently case-sensitive, so mixed-case variants can slip through. Update the
regex patterns in check_stale_workstream_wording.py to match case-insensitively,
keeping the existing stale wording scan behavior intact. Use the existing
pattern list in the scan logic as the place to apply the change so all three
terms are caught regardless of casing.
---
Outside diff comments:
In `@docs/product_first_user_flows.md`:
- Around line 10-25: The sufficiency flow still refers to the mutable guide
version, but this step should operate on the immutable guide-source snapshot.
Update the wording around ProjectGuideSufficiencyAgent and the acceptance
criteria to reference the immutable snapshot semantics explicitly, using the
existing terms “guide-source snapshot” and “immutable guide source snapshot” so
the contract is consistent and unambiguous.
🪄 Autofix (Beta)
Fix all unresolved CodeRabbit comments on this PR:
- Push a commit to this branch (recommended)
- Create a new PR with the fixes
ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration
Configuration used: defaults
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro Plus
Run ID: 9a2aa17b-10a9-41f3-b5d2-ff2ec946681c
📒 Files selected for processing (40)
.agent-loop/LOOP_STATE.md.agent-loop/initiatives/WS-POL-001-submission-artifact-policy-foundation/CHUNK_MAP.md.agent-loop/initiatives/WS-POL-001-submission-artifact-policy-foundation/DECISIONS.md.agent-loop/initiatives/WS-POL-001-submission-artifact-policy-foundation/DISCOVERY.md.agent-loop/initiatives/WS-POL-001-submission-artifact-policy-foundation/INTENT.md.agent-loop/initiatives/WS-POL-001-submission-artifact-policy-foundation/PLAN.md.agent-loop/initiatives/WS-POL-001-submission-artifact-policy-foundation/STATUS.md.agent-loop/initiatives/WS-POL-001-submission-artifact-policy-foundation/chunks/WS-POL-001-01-submission-artifact-policy-foundation.md.agent-loop/initiatives/WS-POL-001-submission-artifact-policy-foundation/reviews/WS-POL-001-01-external-review-response.md.agent-loop/initiatives/WS-POL-001-submission-artifact-policy-foundation/reviews/WS-POL-001-01-internal-review-evidence.mddocs/architecture_checker_framework.mddocs/architecture_data_model.mddocs/architecture_lifecycle_state_machine.mddocs/architecture_lockdown.mddocs/architecture_system_architecture.mddocs/current_system_data_flow.htmldocs/decision_0003_project_guides_are_first_class.mddocs/decision_0011_submission_artifact_policy_drives_pre_submit.mddocs/glossary.mddocs/operations_project_operating_manual.mddocs/operations_queue_policy.mddocs/operations_workspace_packet_convention.mddocs/principles.mddocs/product_first_user_flows.mddocs/roadmap_day_by_day_execution_plan.mddocs/roadmap_implementation_backlog.mddocs/roadmap_week1_backend_plan.mddocs/spec_chunk_3_project_guide_foundation.mddocs/spec_chunk_5_submission_packet_foundation.mddocs/spec_chunk_6_checker_contract_records.mddocs/spec_chunk_7_checker_runner_registry.mddocs/spec_chunk_8_submission_artifact_policy_checkers.mddocs/spec_week2_checker_framework.mddocs/template_checker_policy.mddocs/template_preflight_evidence.mddocs/template_project_guide.mddocs/template_submission_artifact_policy.mddocs/template_submission_packet.mdscripts/check_stale_workstream_wording.pyscripts/test_agent_gates.py
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (17)
- .agent-loop/initiatives/WS-POL-001-submission-artifact-policy-foundation/STATUS.md
- docs/template_preflight_evidence.md
- docs/architecture_system_architecture.md
- docs/operations_workspace_packet_convention.md
- docs/operations_queue_policy.md
- docs/principles.md
- .agent-loop/initiatives/WS-POL-001-submission-artifact-policy-foundation/DISCOVERY.md
- docs/roadmap_week1_backend_plan.md
- docs/glossary.md
- .agent-loop/initiatives/WS-POL-001-submission-artifact-policy-foundation/DECISIONS.md
- docs/template_project_guide.md
- docs/spec_chunk_6_checker_contract_records.md
- docs/current_system_data_flow.html
- .agent-loop/initiatives/WS-POL-001-submission-artifact-policy-foundation/reviews/WS-POL-001-01-internal-review-evidence.md
- .agent-loop/initiatives/WS-POL-001-submission-artifact-policy-foundation/PLAN.md
- .agent-loop/initiatives/WS-POL-001-submission-artifact-policy-foundation/INTENT.md
- docs/decision_0011_submission_artifact_policy_drives_pre_submit.md
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (7)
- docs/template_checker_policy.md
- docs/template_submission_packet.md
- docs/architecture_lockdown.md
- docs/decision_0003_project_guides_are_first_class.md
- docs/spec_chunk_3_project_guide_foundation.md
- docs/spec_chunk_5_submission_packet_foundation.md
- docs/architecture_checker_framework.md
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Summary
This PR adds the zero-trust planning package for
WS-POL-001 - Submission Artifact Policy Foundation.It does not implement product runtime changes yet. It locks intent, discovery, decisions, plan, chunk map, first chunk contract, review evidence, and external-review response before backend implementation starts.
Chunk
WS-POL-001-01 - Guide Policy Bundle FoundationGoal
Lock the architecture and implementation contract for Workstream-derived submission artifact policy before backend work begins.
The core path is:
Human-Approved Intent
Project owners provide guide material, business terms, and payment terms. Workstream performs the internal setup work: source snapshotting, guide sufficiency review, policy derivation, effective policy merge, checker compilation, and admin/project_manager approval.
Tasks do not derive policies or compile checker bundles by default. They lock references to the applicable guide snapshot, effective project policy hash, and project pre-submit checker policy hash.
Scope Control
In scope:
WS-POL-001Out of scope:
Product Behavior Locked By This Plan
ProjectGuideis human-facing project material.GuideSourceSnapshotis an immutable bundle manifest for exact evaluated guide/source material.ProjectGuideSufficiencyAgentchecks guide coverage against the project task set.SubmissionArtifactPolicyis the Workstream-derived machine-readable intake contract.evidence_policyis construction state, not a compatibility alias.PreSubmitCheckerPolicyis generated once at project-guide scope from the effective project policy.PreSubmitCheckResponse.DomainError(code="pre_submission_checker_failed").accept,needs_revision, andreject.Acceptance Criteria Proof
sha256(canonical_json(manifest_json)).PreSubmitCheckerPolicyafter Chunk 2.scripts/check_stale_workstream_wording.pyand covered byscripts/test_agent_gates.py.Validation
Local validation run on the pushed head:
Results:
GitHub Actions on current head are passing:
Internal Review
Required tracks ran and valid findings were addressed:
PASS AFTER FIXESPASS AFTER FIXESPASS WITH LOW RISKSPASS WITH LOW RISKSPASS WITH LOW RISKSPASSPASS AFTER FIXESPASS WITH LOW RISKSPASS WITH LOW RISKSEvidence file:
.agent-loop/initiatives/WS-POL-001-submission-artifact-policy-foundation/reviews/WS-POL-001-01-internal-review-evidence.md.External Review
External review responses are tracked separately from internal evidence:
.agent-loop/initiatives/WS-POL-001-submission-artifact-policy-foundation/reviews/WS-POL-001-01-external-review-response.mdKnown prior CodeRabbit comments have been checked against current head. The response-schema wording and immutable compiled-bundle data model wording are already addressed.
CI / Gate Integrity
scripts/test_agent_gates.py.2892c9d4cbe6d8e8e33fcbe37a84384193f003af.Test Delta
The only executable test change is the strengthened stale-wording gate test in
scripts/test_agent_gates.py. Test-delta review passed with low risk and no required fixes.Human Review Focus
Please review:
Stop Condition
Do not begin backend implementation from this PR until this planning contract is approved and merged.
Summary by CodeRabbit
Documentation
Bug Fixes
Chores