docs(audit): file the 2026-08-03 fork-contract breach audit record - #17
Conversation
What: adds 000-docs/007-AA-AUDR-fork-contract-breach-2026-08-03.md and its index row. The record inventories all 73 divergent paths of fork main (71ad457) vs upstream/main (631b05c), classifying 57 as allowlisted additive surface, 14 as PR #16 contract violations (relay crates, desktop, all four upstream workflows, both lockfiles), and 2 (.harness-hash*) as a pre-existing allowlist/contract mismatch. Why: FORK.md declares this fork additive-only; PR #16 breached that. The causal chain (fork gates wired only in local lefthook, never a required CI check) and the no-damage findings (prod relay on the upstream digest-pinned image, nothing pushed upstream) need a durable record before the revert and enforcement work lands. Chose a standalone dated audit doc over folding the narrative into the revert PR body because 000-docs is the fork's declared record lane and PR bodies don't index. How verified: divergence list reproduced from git diff upstream/main... origin/main --name-status; the 14-path violation set confirmed equal to the PR #16 squash diff; gate run on a detached worktree at 71ad457 reproduced FAIL/16 + must-survive PASS as recorded. Signed-off-by: jeremylongshore <jeremylongshore@users.noreply.github.com>
|
Warning Review limit reached
Next review available in: 51 minutes You've used all free OSS reviews for now. Wait for the free limit to reset to keep reviewing this public repository. How can I continue?After more reviews become available, a review can be triggered using the To avoid repeated limits, reduce automatic review volume by pausing incremental auto-reviews earlier, using label-based review opt-in, excluding WIP or generated PR titles, or requesting reviews manually when the PR is ready. If your team needs uninterrupted high-volume reviews, an organization admin can enable usage-based reviews. How do review limits work?CodeRabbit enforces per-developer PR review limits for each organization. Most developers receive the normal plan review availability. For paid Pro and Pro+ PR reviews, CodeRabbit uses adaptive limits for sustained high-volume activity. When a developer's recent PR review activity reaches the 95th percentile or higher among CodeRabbit users, additional reviews become available more gradually as earlier reviews age out of the rolling window. Please refer docs for additional details. Review details⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: defaults Review profile: CHILL Plan: Pro Plus Run ID: 📒 Files selected for processing (1)
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughThe change adds an indexed audit of a fork-contract breach. The audit records affected paths, causes, impact, updater-tag follow-up, remediation steps, and acceptance criteria. ChangesFork contract audit
Estimated code review effort: 1 (Trivial) | ~5 minutes Possibly related PRs
🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5✅ Passed checks (5 passed)
✨ Finishing Touches🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
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 |
Code Review SummaryThe review did not run because the selected model is no longer available. Choose another model in Kilo Code review settings: https://app.kilo.ai/code-reviews Previous Review SummaryCurrent summary above is authoritative. Previous snapshots are kept for context only. Previous reviewThe review did not run because the selected model is no longer available. Choose another model in Kilo Code review settings: https://app.kilo.ai/code-reviews |
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 3
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
Inline comments:
In `@000-docs/007-AA-AUDR-fork-contract-breach-2026-08-03.md`:
- Around line 102-104: Update the production relay entry near the upstream
published image reference to record the complete image digest instead of the
truncated sha256 value; if the digest is intentionally redacted, explicitly
state that and link the exact deployment evidence.
- Around line 123-143: Revise the “Remediation (executed after this audit)”
section to distinguish completed actions from outstanding work: add evidence for
completed steps, including relevant PR and merge commit references, and move the
unfinished item 4 controls plus the acceptance criteria into a clearly labeled
planned follow-up section. Preserve the existing remediation details while
ensuring the executed heading contains only verified completed work.
- Around line 28-32: Update the divergence inventory reproduction command near
“Classification against the scripts/fork-gates/check-additive-only.sh allowlist”
to compare immutable commit IDs, using the recorded upstream and fork object
references such as 631b05c88...71ad4571c; alternatively, document the resolved
object IDs alongside the command. Preserve the existing name-status comparison
and 73-path classification.
🪄 Autofix (Beta)
Fix all unresolved CodeRabbit comments on this PR:
- Push a commit to this branch (recommended)
- Create a new PR with the fixes
ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration
Configuration used: defaults
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro Plus
Run ID: cd3bfc04-dd1c-4805-9b86-8ce62f7a9378
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
000-docs/000-INDEX.md000-docs/007-AA-AUDR-fork-contract-breach-2026-08-03.md
…gest truncation, split executed vs planned What: three fixes to the breach audit from PR #17 review. (1) The divergence reproduction command now uses pinned object IDs (631b05c...71ad457) instead of mutable branch refs, so later runs reproduce the recorded 73-path result. (2) The truncated relay-image digest is now explicitly declared deliberate (public fork; full deployment evidence lives in the private ops lane). (3) Section 6 is retitled a remediation PLAN with per-step PR references (#18 revert, #19 sync), separating filed-before-completion planning from completion evidence. Why: an audit record must be reproducible and honest about what was done vs planned at filing time; CodeRabbit's Major finding was exactly that executed/planned conflation. How verified: re-read against the three review threads; each finding has a matching hunk; no content outside section 2 intro, section 4 bullet 1, and section 6 changed. Signed-off-by: jeremylongshore <jeremylongshore@users.noreply.github.com>
1 participant
What
Adds
000-docs/007-AA-AUDR-fork-contract-breach-2026-08-03.md(+ index row): the dated audit record of the FORK.md contract breach — PR #16 merged 14 upstream-owned paths onto forkmain.Why + decision rationale
FORK.md declares this fork additive-only; the record must exist before the remediation lands so the revert/sync PRs can reference it. Chose a standalone
000-docsartifact over PR-body narrative because 000-docs is the fork's declared record lane and PR bodies don't index.Layer touched
Fork-owned
000-docs/only — allowlisted additive surface; no upstream-owned path touched.How verified
git diff upstream/main...origin/main --name-status= 73 paths; 57 ALLOW / 14 violations / 2 pre-existing.9b0ff3c92..71ad4571c).71ad4571c:check-additive-only.shFAIL/16,check-must-survive.shPASS 10/10 — as recorded in the doc.Risks
None — additive doc. The doc is public-safe (no host identity, no keys; image digest truncated).
Follow-up (tracked in the doc §6)
Revert PR → repair-branch sync PR → /contribute lane for the solved problems → fork-gates as a required CI check + fork CLAUDE.md.
Summary by CodeRabbit