fix(security): catalog discovery must use chat egress policy

[cursor]

Why

PR #642 seeds the org provider catalog and chooses workers by cost-performance. Catalog GET /v1/models still sent the KV Bearer token after only a hostname + HTTPS check, followed redirects, and treated any http:// seed URL as insecure-ok. That is a credential leak chat would have refused.

What landed (on top of #642)

• Shared provider_base_url_rejection for chat and discovery (public HTTPS, allowlist, getaddrinfo private/loopback/link-local/reserved).
• Discovery uses a no-redirect opener. HTTP is opt-in via allow_insecure_discovery only (loopback lab fixtures).
• persist_catalog_to_agents_db replaces the sqlite agent_pool so a later static reseed cannot keep stale discovered workers.
• Sidecar workflow fails if /healthz never succeeds; no-secrets smoke skip happens only after a healthy serve.
• Empty / whitespace KV credentials are not ready (NotConfigured, no GitHub Models fallback).

Do not merge #642 in parallel. This branch is #642 (ca2dd9f) plus the egress/reseed/health fixes.

Tests

python -m pytest tests/test_catalog_bootstrap.py tests/test_provider_catalog.py \
  tests/test_provider_catalog_robustness.py tests/test_opencode_sidecar_contract.py \
  tests/test_cost_performance_chooser.py tests/test_provider_reliability.py -q
python -m pytest tests -q --ignore=tests/fuzz

Local: 333 passed (full tests minus fuzz).

Papers

Same claim boundary as docs/doctoring/provider-catalog.md and docs/doctoring/cost_performance_routing.md (APA 7). Discovery egress is now an explicit claim: no private/loopback/redirect leak of the KV key.

  

[cursor]

Verdict

Do not merge this head (64b69d0). The egress/reseed/health direction is correct, but this branch is #642 at ca2dd9f and is missing 1e82827 (live GET /v1/models as the primary catalog, _provider_slots compose, and the capability-tag cap).

Land #675 instead. That branch is 1e82827 plus this egress policy, persist-replace, sidecar /healthz fail-closed, empty-credential NotConfigured, and marker-only tag_discovered_model (the 1e82827 default-reasoning bug is not on this older compose path).

Next action

Leave this PR unmerged. Review and merge #675, then close #642 and this PR as superseded.

View PR

  

_{Sent by Cursor Automation: Fix Issues}

[cursor]

Bugbot is not enabled for your account, so this pull request was not reviewed.

Enable Bugbot in the Cursor dashboard to get automatic reviews on future PRs.

[opencode-agent]

Pull request overview

OpenCode cannot approve yet because required coverage evidence did not pass.

Review outcome

1. HIGH .github/workflows/opencode-review.yml:1 - Coverage evidence did not prove required test/docstring evidence

• Problem: The required coverage-evidence job result was failure, so OpenCode cannot establish approval sufficiency for this head.

• Root cause: Automated approval is only valid when the same-head coverage-evidence job proves supported repository test suites passed and configured docstring gates passed or were advisory, or reports not applicable because no supported source files or package manifests exist. Missing, failed, skipped, unavailable, or unsupported-tooling test evidence is a blocker.

• Fix: Install or configure the repository test/docstring evidence tooling when source files or package manifests exist, rerun the current-head coverage-evidence job, and approve only after it reports success with required evidence or explicit no-source not-applicable evidence.

• Regression test: Keep the approval branch checking needs.coverage-evidence.result == success before posting APPROVE, and publish REQUEST_CHANGES when coverage-evidence blocker states such as cancelled, skipped, failed, unsupported-tooling, or below-100 evidence are present.

• Result: REQUEST_CHANGES

• Reason: coverage-evidence result was failure, so required test/docstring evidence was not proven for current head 0b584ec6ccda87f2ebb4e191c89bc1747255ac75.

• Head SHA: 0b584ec6ccda87f2ebb4e191c89bc1747255ac75

• Workflow run: 32124531648

• Workflow attempt: 1

Coverage evidence

Coverage evidence job did not run or did not publish coverage evidence.

Changed-File Evidence Map

flowchart LR
  PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
  Evidence --> S1["Workflow: opencode-sidecar.yml"]
  S1 --> I1["GitHub Actions review job"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Workflow: opencode-sidecar.yml"]
  R1 --> V1["actionlint plus required checks"]
  Evidence --> S2["Changed file (12 files)"]
  S2 --> I2["repository behavior"]
  I2 --> R2["Review risk: Changed file (12 files)"]
  R2 --> V2["required checks"]
  Evidence --> S3["Docs (9 files)"]
  S3 --> I3["operator or user guidance"]
  I3 --> R3["Review risk: Docs (9 files)"]
  R3 --> V3["docs review"]
  Evidence --> S4["Test (8 files)"]
  S4 --> I4["regression suite"]
  I4 --> R4["Review risk: Test (8 files)"]
  R4 --> V4["targeted test run"]

Loading

[opencode-agent]

OpenCode Review Overview

• Head SHA: 0b584ec6ccda87f2ebb4e191c89bc1747255ac75
• Workflow run: 32129297029
• Workflow attempt: 1
• Gate result: REQUEST_CHANGES (approval step)

Pull request overview

OpenCode cannot approve yet because required coverage evidence did not pass.

Review outcome

1. HIGH .github/workflows/opencode-review.yml:1 - Coverage evidence did not prove required test/docstring evidence

• Problem: The required coverage-evidence job result was failure, so OpenCode cannot establish approval sufficiency for this head.

• Root cause: Automated approval is only valid when the same-head coverage-evidence job proves supported repository test suites passed and configured docstring gates passed or were advisory, or reports not applicable because no supported source files or package manifests exist. Missing, failed, skipped, unavailable, or unsupported-tooling test evidence is a blocker.

• Fix: Install or configure the repository test/docstring evidence tooling when source files or package manifests exist, rerun the current-head coverage-evidence job, and approve only after it reports success with required evidence or explicit no-source not-applicable evidence.

• Regression test: Keep the approval branch checking needs.coverage-evidence.result == success before posting APPROVE, and publish REQUEST_CHANGES when coverage-evidence blocker states such as cancelled, skipped, failed, unsupported-tooling, or below-100 evidence are present.

• Result: REQUEST_CHANGES

• Reason: coverage-evidence result was failure, so required test/docstring evidence was not proven for current head 0b584ec6ccda87f2ebb4e191c89bc1747255ac75.

• Head SHA: 0b584ec6ccda87f2ebb4e191c89bc1747255ac75

• Workflow run: 32129297029

• Workflow attempt: 1

Coverage evidence

Coverage evidence job did not run or did not publish coverage evidence.

Changed-File Evidence Map

flowchart LR
  PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
  Evidence --> S1["Workflow: opencode-sidecar.yml"]
  S1 --> I1["GitHub Actions review job"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Workflow: opencode-sidecar.yml"]
  R1 --> V1["actionlint plus required checks"]
  Evidence --> S2["Changed file (12 files)"]
  S2 --> I2["repository behavior"]
  I2 --> R2["Review risk: Changed file (12 files)"]
  R2 --> V2["required checks"]
  Evidence --> S3["Docs (9 files)"]
  S3 --> I3["operator or user guidance"]
  I3 --> R3["Review risk: Docs (9 files)"]
  R3 --> V3["docs review"]
  Evidence --> S4["Test (8 files)"]
  S4 --> I4["regression suite"]
  I4 --> R4["Review risk: Test (8 files)"]
  R4 --> V4["targeted test run"]

Loading

[opencode-agent]

Pull request overview

OpenCode cannot approve yet because required coverage evidence did not pass.

Review outcome

1. HIGH .github/workflows/opencode-review.yml:1 - Coverage evidence did not prove required test/docstring evidence

• Problem: The required coverage-evidence job result was failure, so OpenCode cannot establish approval sufficiency for this head.

• Root cause: Automated approval is only valid when the same-head coverage-evidence job proves supported repository test suites passed and configured docstring gates passed or were advisory, or reports not applicable because no supported source files or package manifests exist. Missing, failed, skipped, unavailable, or unsupported-tooling test evidence is a blocker.

• Fix: Install or configure the repository test/docstring evidence tooling when source files or package manifests exist, rerun the current-head coverage-evidence job, and approve only after it reports success with required evidence or explicit no-source not-applicable evidence.

• Regression test: Keep the approval branch checking needs.coverage-evidence.result == success before posting APPROVE, and publish REQUEST_CHANGES when coverage-evidence blocker states such as cancelled, skipped, failed, unsupported-tooling, or below-100 evidence are present.

• Result: REQUEST_CHANGES

• Reason: coverage-evidence result was failure, so required test/docstring evidence was not proven for current head 0b584ec6ccda87f2ebb4e191c89bc1747255ac75.

• Head SHA: 0b584ec6ccda87f2ebb4e191c89bc1747255ac75

• Workflow run: 32129297029

• Workflow attempt: 1

Coverage evidence

Coverage evidence job did not run or did not publish coverage evidence.

Changed-File Evidence Map

flowchart LR
  PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
  Evidence --> S1["Workflow: opencode-sidecar.yml"]
  S1 --> I1["GitHub Actions review job"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Workflow: opencode-sidecar.yml"]
  R1 --> V1["actionlint plus required checks"]
  Evidence --> S2["Changed file (12 files)"]
  S2 --> I2["repository behavior"]
  I2 --> R2["Review risk: Changed file (12 files)"]
  R2 --> V2["required checks"]
  Evidence --> S3["Docs (9 files)"]
  S3 --> I3["operator or user guidance"]
  I3 --> R3["Review risk: Docs (9 files)"]
  R3 --> V3["docs review"]
  Evidence --> S4["Test (8 files)"]
  S4 --> I4["regression suite"]
  I4 --> R4["Review risk: Test (8 files)"]
  R4 --> V4["targeted test run"]

Loading