docs: add reliability sidecar recipe - #10780
Conversation
![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: 94b343f443
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Codex has been enabled to automatically 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 👍.
When you sign up for Codex through ChatGPT, Codex can also answer questions or update the PR, like "@codex address that feedback".
|
The remaining failure occurs before this recipe is scanned: Goose's base I withdrew #10782 after security review because opting a fork into the privileged scanner would expose secrets and network-capable tooling to untrusted recipe content. The recipe itself passes goose CLI validation and live MCP discovery. Any safe scanner redesign should happen in the base repository and process fork content without privileged secrets or tooling. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 58864e59d9
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Codex has been enabled to automatically 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 👍.
When you sign up for Codex through ChatGPT, Codex can also answer questions or update the PR, like "@codex address that feedback".
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: ff78a0acd1
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Codex has been enabled to automatically 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 👍.
When you sign up for Codex through ChatGPT, Codex can also answer questions or update the PR, like "@codex address that feedback".
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 06123ec1e4
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Codex has been enabled to automatically 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 👍.
When you sign up for Codex through ChatGPT, Codex can also answer questions or update the PR, like "@codex address that feedback".
| `workflow-checkpoint`. Generate opaque high-entropy values for namespace, | ||
| workflow key, holder, observation key, and outer idempotency key. Keep one | ||
| operation identity stable for this run and use fresh idempotency keys for |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
When this recipe is used for the advertised recovery path after an earlier ambiguous write, generating a fresh namespace/workflow key means workflow-checkpoint cannot look up the prior external_result_uncertain claim. If the destination read-back is also inconclusive, the agent can create a new checkpoint generation and make another domain attempt instead of coordinating with the old one; the recipe should reuse a previously reported opaque operation identity or ask the user for it before generating new keys.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
|
Root cause confirmed from run 30560629024: I opened #10825 with the safe boundary: the privileged AI scan runs only for branches in |
|
Update: #10825 has been hardened through review. The proposed workflow no longer checks out fork content or runs the secret-bearing AI scanner for fork PRs. Instead, the fork boundary fails until a For this PR, once #10825 merges: retrigger the recipe workflow (synchronize or reopen), approve current head |
|
#10825 is now merged. This PR is still at head \ |
|
Thanks for the contribution. If you add the MCP server to the official MCP registry goose will pick it up as searchable when we finish the plan discussed here #10830 That's our preferred path for integrations going forward. |
2 participants
Summary
Adds one recipe for a risky edge case: an external write finishes, but its response is lost. The recipe checkpoints the attempt, checks the destination by a stable marker, and avoids a blind retry. It skips the sidecar for one-time, low-risk work.
The sidecar receives only opaque identifiers, not task text, credentials, personal data, or destination payloads. It records caller-observed evidence; it does not claim exactly-once execution.
Validation
The no-auth MCP endpoint also passed initialization and tool discovery. This PR changes one recipe file and no goose runtime code.