docs: rebase canonical LifeOS product architecture on current main - #145
Draft
seonghobae wants to merge 114 commits into
Draft
docs: rebase canonical LifeOS product architecture on current main#145seonghobae wants to merge 114 commits into
seonghobae wants to merge 114 commits into
Conversation
|
Important Review skippedDraft detected. Please check the settings in the CodeRabbit UI or the ⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: Organization UI Review profile: CHILL Plan: Pro Plus Run ID: You can disable this status message by setting the Use the checkbox below for a quick retry:
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 |
This was referenced Aug 10, 2026
* test(calendar): specify encrypted credential store boundary * feat(calendar): implement encrypted credential store * fix(calendar): harden bounded encrypted secret reads * test(calendar): exercise authenticated tamper and delete failures * fix(calendar): make tamper test type-safe
* test(review): define data-rights contributor acceptance * feat(review): implement service-owned data-rights contributor * feat(review): persist replay-safe erasure receipts * feat(review): compose data-rights contributor in runtime * test(review): compose transactional data-rights runtime * test(review): prove data-rights lifecycle on PostgreSQL * fix(review): release connections when transaction begin fails * style(review): format data-rights integration test * style(review): format data-rights unit test * style(review): format data-rights contributor * chore(review): expose exact data-rights formatter diff * style(review): apply canonical data-rights formatting * style(review): apply canonical data-rights formatting * chore(review): restore canonical formatter gate * test(review): reject cross-tenant export evidence * fix(review): reject cross-tenant export evidence * fix(review): preserve UUIDv4 validation * style(review): format data-rights contributor * style(review): restore canonical data-rights formatting * test(review): require workspace-scoped erasure receipts * ci(review): verify workspace-scoped erasure receipts * ci(review): stage receipt-scope repair script * ci(review): run verified receipt-scope repair * ci(review): finalize workspace-scoped erasure receipts * ci(review): align receipt-scope test double * ci(review): rerun workspace-scoped receipt repair * ci(review): harden and rerun workspace-scoped receipt repair * ci(review): verify receipt-scope RED from JSON evidence * fix(review): scope erasure receipts to workspace * fix(review): isolate erasure replay per workspace * fix(review): mirror workspace-scoped erasure receipts in unit fixture * style(review): terminate receipt isolation test file * style(review): align data-rights contributor with Prettier * style(review): satisfy exact package Prettier output * chore(review): remove temporary receipt repair writer * chore(review): remove temporary receipt finalizer * chore(review): remove temporary receipt repair workflow * chore(review): remove temporary receipt repair runner * style(review): terminate receipt scope test file * style(review): restore verified Prettier output * style(review): restore Prettier 3.9 interface wrapping * chore(review): expose current Prettier diff * fix(review): satisfy formatter gate
![github-advanced-security[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/57789?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
| const prefix = `| PR #${pullRequest} |`; | ||
| const row = assessment.split('\n').find((line) => line.startsWith(prefix)); | ||
| assert.ok(row, `missing active assessment row for PR #${pullRequest}`); | ||
| assert.match(row, new RegExp(`\\| ${status} \\|`, 'u')); |
| function assertProtectedAssessmentEvidence(pullRequest) { | ||
| assert.match( | ||
| assessment, | ||
| new RegExp(`^[-|].*PR #${pullRequest}\\b[^\\n]*Implemented on protected main`, 'mu'), |
This was referenced Aug 17, 2026
Closed
Open
[P0 Release Gap] Deliver a reproducible LifeOS release candidate with buyer-verifiable evidence
#210
Open
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
2 participants
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.
Why
LifeOS needs one reconstructable, code-current product line for PRD, TRD, root Architecture, ADRs, UML/C4, logical data ownership, API/event/schema contracts, Security/Threat Model, Privacy/Data Lifecycle, Test Strategy, Operability/recovery, Release/Migration/Rollback/provenance, Standards/Research, Traceability, Documentation Assessment, README, AGENTS, CLAUDE and CHANGELOG. Historical PR bodies and predecessor checks are evidence only.
Canonical graph
This PR maintains the single canonical line in:
docs/PRD.md,docs/TRD.md, rootARCHITECTURE.md;docs/adr/README.mdplus ADR 0001-0012;docs/DATA_MODEL.md,docs/UML.md,docs/API_CONTRACTS.md;SECURITY.md,docs/THREAT_MODEL.md,docs/PRIVACY_DATA_LIFECYCLE.md;docs/TEST_STRATEGY.md,docs/OPERABILITY.md,docs/RELEASE_AND_MIGRATION.md;docs/STANDARDS_TRACEABILITY.md,docs/TRACEABILITY.md,docs/DOCUMENTATION_ASSESSMENT.md;Protected-main reconciliation
The current branch includes protected main through:
Protected behavior is labeled
Implemented on protected main. Superseded predecessor PRs are not described as current active work.Active work and remaining gaps
Only the current unintegrated contributor slices are labeled
Implemented on active PR:Canonical buyer gaps remain
Partial:Issue #132 remains a
Partialverification-governance gap for central scanner checkout/SARIF/status attribution. Documentation integration does not close product gaps.RED -> GREEN evidence
A new
documentation-currentness.test.mjsfirst failed against the stale predecessor documentation, then passed after the canonical maturity graph was corrected. On the complete integrated tree, the documentation contracts currently pass 12/12 and the committed Git blob hashes match the locally validated GREEN files.Merge discipline
This PR remains Draft. Its exact unchanged head must still pass live CI, AppGuardrail, SAST Semgrep, Security Scan, Commercial Readiness, current review findings and live-base compatibility. The newly dispatched workflows are pending and are not treated as passing. No release or shipped-capability claim follows from this documentation PR alone.