Conversation
…anonical Aaron autonomous-loop 2026-04-25 (verbatim): *"agent peer review is enough to graduate it"*. Collapses the three-state ladder (uncanonical / agent-peer-reviewed / human-peer-reviewed) to a two-state model: - **Stage 1 — Uncanonical** (unchanged): just landed, no review yet. Disclosure tag `(not peer reviewed yet)`. - **Stage 2 — Peer-reviewed (canonical)**: agent peer review by an independent (non-author) reviewer is sufficient. Disclosure tag `(peer-reviewed; canonical)` or no tag. Prior draft required human review to reach canonical; that's wrong. - **Stage 3 — Human-peer-reviewed (canonical + human-endorsed)**: SEPARATE additional-trust marker, not a higher canonical tier. Substrate is canonical as of stage 2; stage 3 is an optional endorsement layer for when human engagement is load-bearing to a downstream claim. Rationale updated: requiring human review to graduate would serialize the factory through a human bottleneck. Agent peer review catches most of what review catches; keeping it sufficient keeps the factory parallel without lowering the bar. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull request overview
Updates the peer-review disclosure ladder in docs/BACKLOG.md to treat independent agent peer review as sufficient for “canonical” status, while reframing human review as an optional additional-endorsement marker rather than a required graduation gate.
Changes:
- Collapses “agent-peer-reviewed (not human-reviewed)” into Peer-reviewed (canonical), explicitly stating agent review is sufficient to graduate to canonical.
- Reframes Human-peer-reviewed as “canonical + human-endorsed” (an optional additional-trust marker rather than a higher canonical tier).
- Updates the rationale paragraph to match the new two-state canonical model plus optional human-endorsement layer.
4 tasks
AceHack
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 25, 2026
…ew-DISCLOSURE refinement, 5 threads) (#415) #408 is the middle link in the three-PR policy-evolution chain (#407 gate → #408 DISCLOSURE → #410 agent-review-is-enough). All five review threads were about carrying the reframing through the prose consistently: - Codex P2 — contradictory gate wording in disclosure row - Codex P2 — distinct tags per stage (unreviewed vs agent-reviewed) - Copilot — "Peer review is the gate" remnant after refinement - Copilot — "gate state" vs "disclosure state" terminology - Copilot — "External reviewer" criterion captures internal sessions All 5 resolved in single commit e338c69 before auto-merge fired. Drain-log is pedagogically load-bearing: it captures the policy- evolution step where the gate concept got demoted to a disclosure marker. Composes with the #405 Wave 2 log (captured in #414) and the broader Otto-250 preservation discipline. Archive intentionally excluded from markdownlint via the preservation-ignore landed in #409. Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
3 tasks
AceHack
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 25, 2026
… §24 truth, downstream typo Combined drain for two related rows on docs/BACKLOG.md: #406 (local-DB shortlist): - Replaced 'we already backlog CodeQL installation' with the accurate xref: docs/INSTALLED.md lists CodeQL CLI as pending install; BACKLOG.md only has the completed CodeQL workflow. - Same fix in the composes-with section (line 10089) — points at INSTALLED.md pending-install row + notes BACKLOG's CodeQL workflow entry covers CI side only. - 'down-stream' → 'downstream' typo. #407 (four-way-parity): - Corrected the parenthetical about GOVERNANCE §24. §24 DOES carry an explicit 'three consumers / three ways' count today (dev laptop / CI runner / devcontainer). Reframed the bullet to make the two-axis distinction clear: §24's three-consumers count is the deployment-target axis; this row's four-way count is the shell-runtime axis. Both stay; sweep adds the shell-runtime sibling note. Mixed role-refs + names (#407 thread): per Otto-279, docs/BACKLOG.md IS exempt from name-stripping (it's a history surface). Reply will explain. Inline-code wrap (#407): the original wrap was in the pre- #408/#410 refinement; subsequent refinements already collapsed it. Reply will note. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
AceHack
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 25, 2026
…ownstream typo (#423) * drain(#406 + #407 post-merge): xref CodeQL → INSTALLED.md, GOVERNANCE §24 truth, downstream typo Combined drain for two related rows on docs/BACKLOG.md: #406 (local-DB shortlist): - Replaced 'we already backlog CodeQL installation' with the accurate xref: docs/INSTALLED.md lists CodeQL CLI as pending install; BACKLOG.md only has the completed CodeQL workflow. - Same fix in the composes-with section (line 10089) — points at INSTALLED.md pending-install row + notes BACKLOG's CodeQL workflow entry covers CI side only. - 'down-stream' → 'downstream' typo. #407 (four-way-parity): - Corrected the parenthetical about GOVERNANCE §24. §24 DOES carry an explicit 'three consumers / three ways' count today (dev laptop / CI runner / devcontainer). Reframed the bullet to make the two-axis distinction clear: §24's three-consumers count is the deployment-target axis; this row's four-way count is the shell-runtime axis. Both stay; sweep adds the shell-runtime sibling note. Mixed role-refs + names (#407 thread): per Otto-279, docs/BACKLOG.md IS exempt from name-stripping (it's a history surface). Reply will explain. Inline-code wrap (#407): the original wrap was in the pre- #408/#410 refinement; subsequent refinements already collapsed it. Reply will note. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com> * drain(#423 P1+P1 Copilot): inline-code-span line-break + brittle line-number xref Two findings on the BACKLOG row landed in #423. P1 (line ~10013): The inline code span for the install command was split across two lines (`\`brew install\\ncodeql\``). CommonMark inline code can't contain line breaks; markdownlint and some renderers misformat. Reflowed so `brew install codeql` stays on a single line. P1 (line ~10094): Pointed at the CodeQL workflow item by line number (`near line 4167`), which drifts as BACKLOG.md grows. Replaced with a stable identifier — bolded checkbox item reference (`**CodeQL workflow** checkbox item`) — that survives re-numbering. --------- 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
Follow-up refinement to #408. You just said: "agent peer review is enough to graduate it".
That collapses the three-state ladder I drew in #408 to a two-state model:
Rationale: requiring human review to graduate would serialize the factory through a human bottleneck. Agent peer review catches most of what review catches; keeping it sufficient keeps the factory parallel without lowering the bar.
Test plan
🤖 Generated with Claude Code