Conversation
… (Amara action #3) Amara's 4th courier ferry (PR #221) proposed the decision-proxy- evidence record format as action item #3 in her Stabilize stage. This PR lands the schema v0, companion template, and one retroactive worked example. The hard rule across all 4 Amara ferries (PRs #196 / #211 / #219 / #221): "never say Amara reviewed something unless Amara actually reviewed it through a logged path" This directory IS the logged path. Each .yaml records one proxy- mediated decision — authority basis, consulted memory files, live-state checks performed, disagreements, peer review status. What landed: - docs/decision-proxy-evidence/README.md — schema v0 + field semantics + when to write a record + naming convention (YYYY-MM-DD-DP-NNN-<slug>.yaml) + relationship to ADRs / commit messages / PR bodies / CONTRIBUTOR-CONFLICTS.md + explicit "what this is NOT" list. - docs/decision-proxy-evidence/_template.yaml — fillable template with all required + optional fields, inline examples commented. - docs/decision-proxy-evidence/2026-04-23-DP-001-acehack- branch-protection-minimal.yaml — retroactive worked example documenting the Otto-66 AceHack branch protection decision. authority_level=retroactive flags this is a backfill. Schema fields: decision_id / timestamp_utc / requested_by / proxied_by / task_class / authority_level / escalation_required / repo_canonical / head_commit / model (with vendor + snapshot + prompt_bundle_hash + loaded_memory_files) / consulted_views / consulted_memory_ids / live_state_checks / decision_summary / disagreements / outputs_touched / review / retraction_of / follow_up_evidence / notes. Task classes: backlog-shaping / settings-change / branch-shaping / roadmap-edit / scope-claim / governance-edit / memory-migration / other. Per-task-class peer-review defaults documented; settings-change / branch-shaping / scope-claim default to peer_review_required=true. Not retroactive for all 20+ session PRs — would be make-work. Backfilling selectively when downstream questions benefit. Not gated yet — v0 is voluntary; CI enforcement is Amara's Determinize-stage work (separate PR, later). Amara's "deterministic reconciliation" framing (endorsed Otto-67) applies: this is the mechanism that makes proxy claims auditable by default. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
AceHack
deleted the
stabilize/decision-proxy-evidence-yaml-schema-amara-action-3
branch
![chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1144995?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: d889cf8035
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
|
|
||
| **Stage:** Stabilize (Otto-67 Amara 4th ferry absorb, PR #221) | ||
| **Companion template:** [`_template.yaml`](_template.yaml) | ||
| **External-maintainer-decision-proxy ADR:** `docs/DECISIONS/2026-04-22-external-maintainer-decision-proxy-adr.md` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This reference points to docs/DECISIONS/2026-04-22-external-maintainer-decision-proxy-adr.md, which does not exist in the repo, so readers cannot reach the normative ADR from this schema document. Because this file is establishing the audit trail contract, a broken authority link weakens traceability and makes it easy to apply the format against the wrong source decision.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
Comment on lines
+83
to
+85
| - **`escalation_required`** — boolean; `true` when this row | ||
| needs human maintainer acknowledgment before `status` | ||
| can move to `landed` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The schema text says escalation_required controls when status can move to landed, but no status field is defined anywhere in required/optional fields or in the template. For any escalated decision, this makes the lifecycle state unrepresentable and will force authors to invent inconsistent out-of-band tracking.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull request overview
Adds a v0 “decision-proxy evidence” documentation substrate intended to make proxy-mediated decision claims auditable via structured YAML records and a worked example.
Changes:
- Introduces
docs/decision-proxy-evidence/README.mddefining the v0 schema, naming convention, and integration points. - Adds
docs/decision-proxy-evidence/_template.yamlas a fillable record template. - Adds a retroactive worked example record for AceHack branch protection (
2026-04-23-DP-001-...yaml).
Reviewed changes
Copilot reviewed 3 out of 3 changed files in this pull request and generated 6 comments.
| File | Description |
|---|---|
| docs/decision-proxy-evidence/README.md | Defines the decision-proxy-evidence schema and how it should be used. |
| docs/decision-proxy-evidence/_template.yaml | Provides a copyable YAML template for new evidence records. |
| docs/decision-proxy-evidence/2026-04-23-DP-001-acehack-branch-protection-minimal.yaml | Supplies a seeded example record documenting a past decision. |
Comment on lines
+9
to
+12
| requested_by: Aaron # human maintainer | ||
| proxied_by: Otto # Amara | Otto | Kenji | other persona | ||
| task_class: other # backlog-shaping | settings-change | branch-shaping | roadmap-edit | scope-claim | governance-edit | memory-migration | other | ||
| authority_level: proposed # delegated | proposed | escalated | retroactive |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
P1: The template hard-codes contributor names (e.g., requested_by: Aaron, proxied_by: Otto). This conflicts with the repo’s operational standing rule “No name attribution in code, docs, or skills” (docs/AGENT-BEST-PRACTICES.md:284-290). Consider switching these fields to role references (e.g., human_maintainer, architect, external_ai_maintainer) or explicitly documenting/ratifying a carve-out for decision-proxy-evidence records so this directory doesn’t become a policy exception by accident.
Comment on lines
+30
to
+34
| consulted_memory_ids: | ||
| - feedback_agent_owns_all_github_settings_and_config_all_projects_zeta_frontier_poor_mans_mode_default_budget_asks_require_scheduled_backlog_and_cost_estimate_2026_04_23 | ||
| - feedback_lfg_free_actions_credits_limited_acehack_is_poor_man_host_big_batches_to_lfg_not_one_for_one_2026_04_23 | ||
| - feedback_honor_those_that_came_before | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
P0: consulted_memory_ids includes memory slugs that don’t appear to exist under memory/ (e.g., feedback_lfg_free_actions_credits_limited_acehack_is_poor_man_host_big_batches_to_lfg_not_one_for_one_2026_04_23 and feedback_honor_those_that_came_before). Since this file is meant to be an auditable evidence record, these should either be corrected to existing memory IDs (matching actual filenames/slugs) or the missing memory files should be added in the same PR.
| conflict_row: null | ||
|
|
||
| outputs_touched: | ||
| - memory/project_acehack_branch_protection_minimal_applied_prior_zeta_archaeology_inconclusive_2026_04_23.md |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
P0: outputs_touched references memory/project_acehack_branch_protection_minimal_applied_prior_zeta_archaeology_inconclusive_2026_04_23.md, but that file doesn’t exist under memory/. Either update this to the correct existing path, or add the referenced memory file; otherwise the worked example contains a broken pointer in one of its key provenance fields.
Suggested change
| - memory/project_acehack_branch_protection_minimal_applied_prior_zeta_archaeology_inconclusive_2026_04_23.md |
|
|
||
| **Stage:** Stabilize (Otto-67 Amara 4th ferry absorb, PR #221) | ||
| **Companion template:** [`_template.yaml`](_template.yaml) | ||
| **External-maintainer-decision-proxy ADR:** `docs/DECISIONS/2026-04-22-external-maintainer-decision-proxy-adr.md` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
P1: The referenced ADR path docs/DECISIONS/2026-04-22-external-maintainer-decision-proxy-adr.md does not exist in the repo (the closest match is docs/DECISIONS/2026-04-23-external-maintainer-decision-proxy-pattern.md). Update this reference so readers can navigate to the actual ADR/pattern document.
Suggested change
| **External-maintainer-decision-proxy ADR:** `docs/DECISIONS/2026-04-22-external-maintainer-decision-proxy-adr.md` | |
| **External-maintainer-decision-proxy ADR:** `docs/DECISIONS/2026-04-23-external-maintainer-decision-proxy-pattern.md` |
| all dates for now since volume is low) | ||
| - `<slug>` — short kebab-case identifier of the decision | ||
|
|
||
| Example: `docs/decision-proxy-evidence/2026-04-24-DP-001-acehack-branch-protection-minimal.yaml` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The filename example uses DP-001 on 2026-04-24, but this PR already introduces 2026-04-23-DP-001-.... Keeping the example in sync with the actual first record (or using a different DP number) will prevent confusion about whether IDs are global-monotonic vs per-date.
Suggested change
| Example: `docs/decision-proxy-evidence/2026-04-24-DP-001-acehack-branch-protection-minimal.yaml` | |
| Example: `docs/decision-proxy-evidence/2026-04-24-DP-002-acehack-branch-protection-minimal.yaml` |
Comment on lines
+186
to
+190
| - **Amara's 4 courier ferries** are not themselves | ||
| decision-proxy records — they are proposals. Decisions | ||
| made BASED ON those ferries should cite them via | ||
| `consulted_memory_ids` pointing to the absorb docs | ||
| (`docs/aurora/2026-04-23-amara-*.md`). |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
P1: This section asserts there are "4 courier ferries" and points to docs/aurora/2026-04-23-amara-*.md, but currently only two matching Amara absorb docs exist under docs/aurora/. Either add the missing absorb docs referenced in the PR description or adjust the wording to match what is actually present in the tree so the documentation doesn’t drift.
Suggested change
| - **Amara's 4 courier ferries** are not themselves | |
| decision-proxy records — they are proposals. Decisions | |
| made BASED ON those ferries should cite them via | |
| `consulted_memory_ids` pointing to the absorb docs | |
| (`docs/aurora/2026-04-23-amara-*.md`). | |
| - **Amara's courier ferries** are not themselves | |
| decision-proxy records — they are proposals. Decisions | |
| made BASED ON those ferries should cite them via | |
| `consulted_memory_ids` pointing to the relevant absorb | |
| docs under `docs/aurora/`. |
3 tasks
AceHack
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 24, 2026
…(Amara action #2) (#223) Amara's 4th ferry (PR #221) action item #2: pin Claude model snapshot + loaded memory state + prompt bundle hash so "Claude" is not a moving target across model version shifts (3.5 → 3.7 → 4 → 4.x all have materially different system-prompt bundles + knowledge cutoffs + memory-retention language per archived Drive artifacts). Three-part scaffolding (v0): 1. tools/hygiene/capture-tick-snapshot.sh - Captures mechanically-accessible state: * Claude Code CLI version (`claude --version`) * CLAUDE.md + AGENTS.md + memory/MEMORY.md SHAs * Memory index byte count * Git HEAD + branch + repo * Date UTC * Per-user ~/.claude/CLAUDE.md SHA if present - Outputs YAML (default) or JSON (`--json`) - Agent fills model_snapshot + prompt_bundle_hash from session context (not CLI-accessible today) 2. docs/hygiene-history/session-snapshots.md - Session-level + significant-event pins (not per-tick) - Append-only row format: session_id / captured_utc / event (session-open | mid-session-pin | session-close | compaction) / agent / model / CLI version / git state / files SHAs / notes / prompt_bundle_hash - Seeded with one mid-session-pin for this tick's Otto-70 capture (the session has been running ~70 ticks; actual session-open is earlier and unreachable for pins) 3. docs/hygiene-history/loop-tick-history.md schema extension - New "On snapshot pinning" subsection documenting the relationship: per-tick pins optional + inline in `notes`; session-level pins go in the sidecar file. - Snapshot capture is discipline, not gate — don't slow the autonomous-loop tick-close for every fire. What the snapshot does NOT capture yet: - model_snapshot — known to the agent from session context, not exposed by `claude --version` (which gives CLI version only). Agent fills. - prompt_bundle_hash — no current tool reconstructs the system prompt bundle. Placeholder null until such a tool lands. Amara's Determinize-stage work potentially. - Active permissions / skill set — session-specific; not captured in v0. First run of the tool on this branch surfaced a separate drift: memory/MEMORY.md is at 58842 bytes (~58KB, over the FACTORY-HYGIENE row #11 24976-byte cap). Not fixed in this PR — known-separately tracked drift. Amara Stabilize-stage: 3/3 landed (with this PR). ✓ Action #3 — decision-proxy-evidence schema (PR #222) ✓ Action #4 — branch-chat non-canonical framing (PR #222) ✓ Action #2 — snapshot pinning scaffolding (this PR) "Deterministic reconciliation" framing (Otto-67 endorsement): snapshot pinning is the mechanism that reconciles "what Claude knew" with "what Claude did" across time — essential for any future audit, tuning, or Amara-style drift analysis. Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
3 tasks
AceHack
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 24, 2026
…BP-25 promotion candidate (#224) Amara's 4th ferry (PR #221 absorb) Determinize-stage item: document "live-state-before-policy" as an explicit rule. The decision-proxy-evidence schema (PR #222) already has the `live_state_checks:` field that enforces it per-record; this PR adds the explicit principle section + candidates the rule for BP-25 promotion. What landed: 1. docs/decision-proxy-evidence/README.md — new section "Live-state-before-policy" covering: - Why the rule exists (Amara's HB-004 commit-sample showing same-day propose-from-symptoms → policy-stance → empirical- correction) - How the schema enforces it (live_state_checks: required for settings-change and branch-shaping task classes; examples from DP-001 worked record) - Scope (settings / branch-shaping / authority claims / roadmap assumptions) - What's excluded (pure reads, mechanical fixes) - BP-NN promotion candidacy note 2. docs/BACKLOG.md — new P2 row candidating BP-25 promotion via ADR. Aarav's call per BP-NN-promotion-cadence FACTORY-HYGIENE row. Rule text candidate provided; owner mapped to Aarav + Kenji + Rune; effort S. Not a unilateral promotion — just the candidate row. Promotion requires Aarav ADR drafting. Amara's Determinize-stage progress: 1/5 (this PR). ✓ Live-state-before-policy schema-enforcement + BP candidate Remaining: - Memory reference-existence lint (S) - Memory duplicate-title lint enforcement (partial via #220/AceHack#12) - Generated CURRENT-*.md views (L) - Memory reconciliation algorithm (L) Per Aaron Otto-72: "don't wait on me approved, mark down your decisions". This PR acts under standing authority (Otto-67 full GitHub grant); BP-25 consideration is logged as BACKLOG candidate for Aarav's promotion call. Frontier UI (future, Otto-63) will be Aaron's batch-review surface. Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
This was referenced Apr 24, 2026
Open
Merged
AceHack
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 24, 2026
…phase sequence, Aminata blocking gate) (#233) Aaron Otto-76 named-agent-email-ownership directive crystallises three memory layers + task #240 into an executable path: - 2026-04-20 four hard rules (never Aaron address; disclose agent-not-human; name project + why-contacted; recipient-UX- first). - 2026-04-22 two-lanes + standing Playwright signup authorisation + free-tier constraint + provider-choice autonomy. - 2026-04-23 autonomy-envelope with email carve-out (agents own their email; parallel ownership allowed; aaron_bond@yahoo.com test target; "don't be a dick" soft constraint). - Task #240 signup-terrain mapping (complete). Five explicit phase gates: - Phase 0: complete (signup terrain mapped). - Phase 1: persona-email-identity design doc (8 questions — persona choice, handle, provider, recovery cascade, 2FA, lanes, signature, reputation posture). - Phase 2: Aminata threat-model pass (BLOCKING gate — new attack surface, recovery abuse, phishing attribution, employer-policy interaction). - Phase 3: Playwright signup execution (bounded; single persona, single provider, DP-NNN.yaml evidence record). - Phase 4: Test send to aaron_bond@yahoo.com. - Phase 5: Memory capture + BP-NN promotion review. Scope limits explicit: - Does NOT authorise execution this tick. - Does NOT authorise email use bypassing maintainer visibility. - Does NOT allow parallel acquisition without explicit Phase 1 design choice. - Does NOT bypass Aminata blocking gate. Composes with: PR #230 (multi-account Phase-2 gating is sibling pattern); PR #231 (Codex is harness-neutral); decision-proxy-evidence (PR #222) for Phase 3 records; persona roster for persona-choice question. Filed under `## P2 — research-grade`. Effort M total; spread across 3-5 ticks. Otto-77 tick deliverable.
AceHack
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 24, 2026
…rows (Amara Govern-stage 1/2) Amara's 4th ferry (PR #221 absorb) named populating docs/CONTRIBUTOR-CONFLICTS.md as the Govern-stage action: the schema has existed since PR #166 but the Resolved table was empty despite multiple session-observed contributor-level disagreements that closed with evidence. Backfills three genuine contributor-level conflicts observed this session (narrow scope — not maintainer-directives, which are out-of-scope per the schema's contributor-level disagreement definition): - CC-001: Copilot (PR reviewer) vs Aaron on no-name-attribution rule scope (history-file exemption). Resolved in Aaron's favor via Otto-52 clarification; policy BACKLOG row filed in PR #210. - CC-002: Amara (4th ferry) vs Otto (pre-Otto-67 pattern) on Stabilize-vs-keep-opening-new-frames. Resolved in Amara's favor; Otto pivoted at Otto-68 to execute her roadmap; 3/3 Stabilize + 3/5 Determinize landed via PRs #222/#223/#224/#225/#226. - CC-003: Codex (PR reviewer) vs Otto (initial framing) on citing-absent-artifacts. Resolved in Codex's favor via fix commits 29872af/1c7f97d on PRs #207/#208; pattern now discipline (distinguish merged-on-main from proposed-in-PR-open). All three rows follow the schema's 8-column layout and include the full Resolution-so-far / Scope / Source cells the schema requires. No retroactive Aaron→human-maintainer sweep of prior rows; schema's rule 1 (resolutions are additive) honored. This is 1/2 of Amara's Govern-stage work. 2/2 is the authority-envelope + escalation-path ADR (deferred, M-effort). Part of Amara's 4-stage remediation roadmap (Stabilize → Determinize → Govern → Assure). Otto-75 tick.
AceHack
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 24, 2026
…rows (Amara Govern 1/2) (#227) * govern: CONTRIBUTOR-CONFLICTS backfill — 3 resolved session-observed rows (Amara Govern-stage 1/2) Amara's 4th ferry (PR #221 absorb) named populating docs/CONTRIBUTOR-CONFLICTS.md as the Govern-stage action: the schema has existed since PR #166 but the Resolved table was empty despite multiple session-observed contributor-level disagreements that closed with evidence. Backfills three genuine contributor-level conflicts observed this session (narrow scope — not maintainer-directives, which are out-of-scope per the schema's contributor-level disagreement definition): - CC-001: Copilot (PR reviewer) vs Aaron on no-name-attribution rule scope (history-file exemption). Resolved in Aaron's favor via Otto-52 clarification; policy BACKLOG row filed in PR #210. - CC-002: Amara (4th ferry) vs Otto (pre-Otto-67 pattern) on Stabilize-vs-keep-opening-new-frames. Resolved in Amara's favor; Otto pivoted at Otto-68 to execute her roadmap; 3/3 Stabilize + 3/5 Determinize landed via PRs #222/#223/#224/#225/#226. - CC-003: Codex (PR reviewer) vs Otto (initial framing) on citing-absent-artifacts. Resolved in Codex's favor via fix commits 29872af/1c7f97d on PRs #207/#208; pattern now discipline (distinguish merged-on-main from proposed-in-PR-open). All three rows follow the schema's 8-column layout and include the full Resolution-so-far / Scope / Source cells the schema requires. No retroactive Aaron→human-maintainer sweep of prior rows; schema's rule 1 (resolutions are additive) honored. This is 1/2 of Amara's Govern-stage work. 2/2 is the authority-envelope + escalation-path ADR (deferred, M-effort). Part of Amara's 4-stage remediation roadmap (Stabilize → Determinize → Govern → Assure). Otto-75 tick. * govern: annotate CC-002/CC-003 Source cells — PR #221/#219 open, not yet on main Applies CC-003's own discipline (cite-as-open-not-landed) to CC-002 and CC-003 themselves. Both rows cited `docs/aurora/2026-04-23-amara-memory-drift-*` and `docs/aurora/2026-04-23-amara-decision-proxy-*` without the "not yet on main" marker — the files are added by PRs #221 / #219 which are still open. Drain for PR #227 review threads PRRT_kwDOSF9kNM59RFIx and PRRT_kwDOSF9kNM59RFJE (dangling file refs at lines 132, 133). * fix: markdownlint auto-fixes on governance doc Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com> --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
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
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
Amara's 4th ferry (PR #221) Stabilize-stage: two sibling actions land together. Both operationalize parts of the "logged path" + "canonical transport" discipline the hard rule requires.
Action #3 — Decision-proxy-evidence schema (Otto-68)
The logged path the hard rule names. Every proxy-mediated decision gets a
DP-NNN.yamlrecord tracing authority, consulted memory, live-state checks, peer review.docs/decision-proxy-evidence/README.md— schema v0 + field semantics + naming convention + integration with existing substratedocs/decision-proxy-evidence/_template.yaml— fillable templatedocs/decision-proxy-evidence/2026-04-23-DP-001-acehack-branch-protection-minimal.yaml— retroactive worked exampleAction #4 — Branch-chat non-canonical framing (Otto-69 addendum)
Added addendum to
docs/protocols/cross-agent-communication.mdsharpening the existing "branching is unstable infrastructure" positioning with Amara's 4th-ferry context:docs/aurora/*.mdabsorb →decision-proxy-evidence/DP-NNN.yamlif action changesRespects "Primary authorship credit stays with Amara" rule — addendum is downstream absorption notes; her original protocol sections 1-5 remain authoritative.
Why bundled
Both actions are Stabilize-stage per Amara's 4-stage roadmap, both operationalize proxy discipline, both touch the communication / evidence substrate. Conceptually one unit: the logged path (schema) + the not-to-trust transport (branch-chat framing).
Amara Stabilize progress
What this PR is NOT
Test plan
🤖 Generated with Claude Code