diff --git a/.egg-state/agent-outputs/3393-architect-output.json b/.egg-state/agent-outputs/3393-architect-output.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..9a54ef72e8 --- /dev/null +++ b/.egg-state/agent-outputs/3393-architect-output.json @@ -0,0 +1,126 @@ +{ + "issue": 3393, + "phase": "plan", + "agent": "architect", + "title": "Multi-repo pipelines: give the plan a repo dimension (Pipeline.repos + Slice.repo), stop the repos[0] collapse, route worktree/branch/context-PR/slice-PR per slice-repo, and add the cq-1 two-tier cross-repo merge-sequencing gate", + "summary": "The feature is concentrated, not pervasive (refine thesis confirmed against the live tree). The load-bearing gap is the DATA MODEL: Pipeline is a single-repo scalar (orchestrator/models.py:1131 repo:str, :1133 base_branch:str) and the contract Slice has no repo dimension (shared/egg_contracts/models.py:322-459). Everything else is either already list-shaped (gateway create_worktrees(repos=[...]), per-repo get_token_for_repo, repo-parameterized create_slice_pr/create_slice_integration_branch, draft:bool already on create_pr/create_slice_pr) or a small routing change once the plan carries a repo. Architecture: (1) add Pipeline.repos:list[RepoSpec{repo,base_branch}] with a back-compat validator that synthesizes repos from the legacy singleton and a primary_repo property (=repos[0]); (2) add Slice.repo:str|None (owner/name), bump contract schemaVersion 1.3->1.4 with an ADDITIVE after-stamp migration mirroring _migrate_schema_version_to_1_3, and resolve absent==primary at READ sites (the Contract model cannot inject the pipeline repo — it carries no repo field — so None->primary is a runtime resolver, not a model migration); (3) teach the plan parser a `repo:` slice key (_KNOWN_SLICE_KEYS + parse + validate repo in the pipeline set); (4) list-shaped submission (submit_task/create_pipeline accept repos, per-repo base_branch auto-detect) with NEW uniform-visibility + uniform-auth-mode validators that reject mixed sets; (5) stop all three repos[0] collapses and expose the full owner/repo->worktree map (re-keyed by full owner/repo per ruling #6), with slice agents cwd'd into their slice's repo worktree; (6) lazy-per-repo work branch + context PR (every repo with >=1 slice), slice PR routed to slice.repo; (7) the cq-1 two-tier merge-sequencing gate — cross-repo-dependent slice PRs open as DRAFT and the orchestrator auto-marks them ready when the upstream slice PR merges (NEW gateway mark_pr_ready verb + a merge-poll pass; neither exists today), while beyond-merge-state edges (release/publish, version-pin) are held and released via HITL decisions; (8) per-repo test-gate + reviewer-diff scoping and per-repo status/naming surfaces. Hardest, most-underestimated part is (7): GitHub has no atomic cross-repo merge, so v1 ships an ordering HOLD, and the mark_ready verb + merge poll are genuinely new machinery. N=1 single-repo pipelines are the untouched regression baseline throughout.", + "grounded_against_tree": "2026-07-02 on branch egg/issue-3393-architect/work. Verified: Slice model (shared/egg_contracts/models.py:322-459, no repo field); Contract schemaVersion machinery + the three migration validators (:838-1121, current 1.3); Pipeline repo/branch/base_branch scalars (orchestrator/models.py:1131-1136, NO repos list today); submit_task single-repo (mcp_tools/_submit.py:78-79); create_pipeline single-repo parse + owner/name regex + _detect_default_branch (routes/pipelines.py:2107,2163-2173,2252-2253,2472-2490); the three repos[0] collapses (kubernetes_spawner/_spawn.py:449-464/:523, commit_authorship_store.py:928-933, routes/pipelines.py:732); register_session already takes repos:list[str]+mode+base_branch (_session.py:16-39); get_repo_visibility (gateway/repo_visibility.py:407-423) + is_private_mode_enabled global (gateway/config_validator.py:123-135); create_slice_pr already repo-parameterized + draft:bool (_pr.py:139-164,42,105,339); create_slice_integration_branch repo_path-parameterized (_integration.py:12-22); context-PR opener single-repo (routes/pipelines.py:~11001-11152); NO mark_ready/ready_for_review verb and NO PR-merge poll loop today (stacked_pr_reconciler does orphan-retarget only); plan-parser slice keys _KNOWN_SLICE_KEYS has no repo (_models.py:106-117) + unknown-key warn (_yaml_parse.py:438-457).", + "binding_inputs": { + "operator_rulings_from_refine": "The refine analysis (.egg-state/drafts/3393-analysis.md) carries operator-RATIFIED rulings with the same standing as HITL cq-1. This architecture is built to them and does NOT revisit their substance: #1 lazy-per-repo work branch + context PR; #3 test-gate/reviewer-diff scoped to the slice's repo; #4 naming keyed off the primary repo, per-repo PR status lists; #5 per-repo conventions (agent cwd = slice repo worktree, that repo's CLAUDE.md/linters/check-commands govern); #6 worktree map MUST be re-keyed by full owner/repo (reject-same-name shortcut FORBIDDEN; a prohibitive re-key fan-out is a NEW HITL, never a silent fallback).", + "hitl_cq1_merge_sequencing": "Two-tier, BINDING: plain merge ordering is AUTOMATED (dependent slice developed in parallel, PR held in DRAFT, orchestrator auto-marks ready when the upstream slice PR merges — mechanical, no HITL, no human latency); anything BEYOND merge state (release/publish waits, which-version-to-pin, genuine cannot-continue development blocks) is HITL-resolved, never programmatically detected. Dependencies do NOT serialize development — they bite only at PR merge-readiness.", + "scope_v1": "Arbitrary N repos, slice<->repo 1:1, uniform auth mode, uniform visibility per run, full repo_volumes in agent env (no repos[0] collapse), slice-PR routed to slice.repo, cross-repo ordering via existing Slice.dependencies, workable merge-sequencing hold. OUT: mixed auth modes, richer merge machinery, cross-repo atomic merge (impossible), any two-repo/primary+secondary special case." + }, + "current_architecture": { + "data_model_gap": { + "orchestrator/models.py": "Pipeline (~:1120) holds repo:str|None (:1131), branch:str|None (:1132), base_branch:str|None (:1133-1136). NO repos list. base_branch is global, resolved once at create time via _detect_default_branch. This is the singleton that collapses everywhere downstream.", + "shared/egg_contracts/models.py": "Slice (:322-459) has id/name/goal/status/tasks/dependencies/serialized_chain_order/parent_branch_at_creation/integration_base_sha/commit/pr_number/pr_url/review_feedback — NO repo. Contract (:838) schemaVersion default '1.3' with three migration validators: additive after-stamps _migrate_schema_version_to_1_1 (:1016) and _1_3 (:1048), wrap-mode field-strip _1_2 (:1071). Contract carries issue/pipeline_id but NO repo field — so a per-slice absent-repo default cannot be filled by a Contract model validator; it needs the pipeline's repo list at runtime." + }, + "already_multi_repo_ready": { + "gateway_worktrees": "gateway_client create_worktrees(repos:list[str]) -> WorktreeResult.worktrees dict (keyed by BARE repo name today — collision risk, ruling #6 re-key to owner/repo). Spawner param name is repo_volumes.", + "credentials_auth": "get_token_for_repo(repo) / get_auth_mode(repo) per-repo from repositories.yaml; callers invoke once per repo.", + "pr_and_branch": "create_slice_pr(pipeline_id, repo, *, head, base, draft=False, ...) (_pr.py:139-164) and create_slice_integration_branch(pipeline_id, repo_path, *, integration_branch, parent_branch, ...) (_integration.py:12-22) already take an explicit repo/repo_path. create_pr/create_slice_pr already support draft=True (the gateway receives {\"draft\": draft}).", + "session": "register_session already accepts repos:list[str], mode, base_branch (_session.py:16-39) — session model already list-capable for uniform mode.", + "branch_ownership": "check_branch_ownership is repo-agnostic (branch-prefix + PR author); the bot identity/prefix is one GLOBAL config — fine under v1 uniform auth." + }, + "collapse_and_missing": { + "three_repos0_collapses": "kubernetes_spawner/_spawn.py:449-453 repo_name=repos[0].split('/')[-1] -> EGG_REPO_PATH, :464 pipeline_repo=repos[0] -> :523 EGG_PIPELINE_REPO; commit_authorship_store.py:928-933 next((r for r in repos if r.name=='egg'), repos[0]); routes/pipelines.py:732 overseer_repo=pipeline_repos[0]. Plus a grep sweep at implement time (sandbox/egg_lib/sdlc_hitl.py:82 is guarded by len==1 and is NOT a collapse).", + "no_visibility_or_auth_uniformity_check": "No submission-time visibility validation exists today; uniform-visibility + uniform-auth-mode are NEW validators.", + "no_mark_ready_no_merge_poll": "No mark_ready/ready_for_review gateway verb and no PR-merge poll loop today. stacked_pr_reconciler does orphan-retarget only. The cq-1 auto draft->ready path is genuinely new machinery.", + "single_context_pr": "_open_context_pr_at_implement_start (routes/pipelines.py:~11001-11152) opens exactly ONE context PR on pipeline.repo — must become lazy-per-repo." + } + }, + "findings": [ + {"id": "F1", "finding": "The absent-Slice.repo default (==primary repo) canNOT be a Contract model validator: the Contract model carries no repo/repos field, so it cannot know the pipeline's primary repo at validate time. Design consequence: the schemaVersion 1.3->1.4 bump is a PURELY ADDITIVE after-stamp (documents the new optional field, mirrors _migrate_schema_version_to_1_3 exactly), and the None->primary resolution is a RUNTIME resolver at the orchestrator layer (resolve_slice_repo(slice, pipeline)). This keeps the contract schema self-contained and avoids duplicating the repo list into the contract.", "confidence": "high"}, + {"id": "F2", "finding": "Most orchestrator plumbing is already repo-parameterized (create_worktrees list, create_slice_pr/create_slice_integration_branch repo params, draft:bool, register_session repos:list). The real work is (a) giving the plan a repo (Pipeline.repos + Slice.repo + parser key), (b) stopping the repos[0] collapse and re-keying the worktree map by owner/repo, and (c) building the ONE piece that is missing outright: the cq-1 auto merge-gate (mark_ready verb + merge poll).", "confidence": "high"}, + {"id": "F3", "finding": "routes/pipelines.py is still a single ~27k-line module (the #3312 slice-19 decomposition is NOT in the landed-seams list in orchestrator/CLAUDE.md). FOUR of this feature's changes touch it (create_pipeline submission :~2071; overseer_repo :732; context-PR opener :~11001; slice-PR routing + run-loop merge-gate hook). Under the #3046 file-level slice-overlap validator, slices that both write pipelines.py CANNOT run concurrently — they must be serialized into a chain (or the planner accepts a same-file chain). This dominates the DAG shape: the model + parser are parallel-capable roots, but the pipelines.py-touching slices form a serial spine.", "confidence": "high"}, + {"id": "F4", "finding": "The cq-1 merge-gate splits cleanly into TWO mechanisms with two release paths: (i) merge-state hold = default for every cross-repo dependency edge, AUTO — open dependent PR draft, poll upstream slice PR merge state, mark_ready on merge; (ii) external-condition hold = release/publish/version-pin, HITL — held and human-released. Same-repo dependencies keep the EXISTING stacked-PR integration-branch behavior; cross-repo edges (resolved repos differ) get the draft-hold instead (no branch stacking is possible across repos). The auto path needs the plan to detect cross-repo-ness (repos differ across a dependency edge — derivable from Slice.repo, needs no new field); the HITL path needs the plan to explicitly DECLARE the external condition (an optional per-slice marker — task_planner spells the exact field/shape; default is auto).", "confidence": "high"}, + {"id": "F5", "finding": "Per ruling #5 (per-repo conventions) + ruling #3 (per-repo test/diff scoping): once the worktree map is keyed by owner/repo and the slice agent is cwd'd into its slice's repo worktree, the test gate 'run this repo's check commands in this repo's worktree' and the reviewer diff 'git diff in this worktree vs this repo's base' become mechanical. But they are NOT free: today these resolve against the single pipeline repo, so the resolution sites must be repo-parameterized. Real, if small, code — give it its own slice so the scoping is reviewed explicitly rather than assumed.", "confidence": "medium"}, + {"id": "F6", "finding": "Back-compat is load-bearing and testable at two layers. (a) Pipeline.repos absent (legacy pipeline JSON with only repo/base_branch) -> synthesize repos=[RepoSpec(repo, base_branch)] in a model validator; primary_repo returns repos[0].repo. (b) Slice.repo absent (pre-1.4 contract) -> resolver returns pipeline.primary_repo; schemaVersion promoted 1.3->1.4 on load. N=1 single-repo pipelines must be byte-for-byte behavior-identical (same single work branch, same single context PR, same non-draft slice PRs, no merge-gate) — this is the regression baseline for AC-8.", "confidence": "high"}, + {"id": "F7", "finding": "Uniform-visibility and uniform-auth-mode are two validators of the SAME shape (resolve a per-repo attribute for every repo in the set, reject if not all-equal, actionable error naming the offending repos). Visibility resolves gateway-side (get_repo_visibility(owner, repo)); auth mode resolves gateway-side from repositories.yaml (get_auth_mode(repo)). The orchestrator route needs the resolved per-repo values — a gateway round-trip. gateway_client already exposes get_repo_visibility (_pr.py); auth-mode may need a small new gateway read verb. Same-NAME repo sets are NOT rejected (ruling #6 mandates the owner/repo re-key instead).", "confidence": "medium"} + ], + "recommended_approach": { + "layer_1_data_model": { + "orchestrator_pipeline": "Add a RepoSpec model {repo:str (owner/name, same regex as create_pipeline), base_branch:str|None (None => auto-detect default branch)}. Add Pipeline.repos:list[RepoSpec]=Field(default_factory=list). Add a model validator: if repos is empty and repo is set, synthesize repos=[RepoSpec(repo=repo, base_branch=base_branch)]; if repos is set, keep the legacy repo/base_branch populated with repos[0] for legacy readers. Add primary_repo property (repos[0].repo if repos else repo). NOTHING downstream may assume len(repos) in {1,2}.", + "contract_slice": "Add Slice.repo:str|None=Field(default=None, pattern=owner/name). Bump Contract.schemaVersion default '1.3'->'1.4' and add _migrate_schema_version_to_1_4 as an ADDITIVE after-stamp (guard: if schemaVersion=='1.3': schemaVersion='1.4'), mirroring _migrate_schema_version_to_1_3 verbatim — idempotent, no field mutation. Add a resolver resolve_slice_repo(slice, pipeline) -> slice.repo or pipeline.primary_repo (lives at the orchestrator layer, NOT on the contract model). Update the migration docstring block on Contract.schemaVersion (:844-862) to record the 1.3->1.4 addition.", + "invariants": "absent Pipeline.repos => single-repo synthesis; absent Slice.repo => primary_repo at read time; schema bump additive + idempotent + guarded on exact prior version (never downgrades a future 2.0)." + }, + "layer_2_plan_parser": { + "files": "shared/egg_contracts/plan_parser/_models.py (_KNOWN_SLICE_KEYS += 'repo'), _yaml_parse.py (extract phase_data.get('repo') alongside goal/dependencies; feed Slice.repo), _markdown_parse.py (mirror if the markdown fallback must carry repo), _validators.py (NEW: every slice.repo, when present, must be in the pipeline's submitted repo set; a cross-repo dependency edge is legal and is the intended expression of cross-repo ordering — do NOT reject it).", + "note": "Unknown-key warning (#2870) already surfaces typos automatically once 'repo' is added to the known set. The parser change is additive and back-compat (absent repo key => Slice.repo None => resolver default)." + }, + "layer_3_submission": { + "mcp_submit": "mcp_tools/_submit.py + the tool schema in mcp_tools/_tool_defs.py: accept repos (list of {repo, base_branch}) in addition to the legacy repo/base_branch. If repos given, forward it; else wrap the single repo into a one-element list server-side. Reject empty repo set.", + "create_pipeline": "routes/pipelines.py create_pipeline (:~2071): parse repos[]; for each apply the existing owner/name regex (:2163) and per-repo base-branch auto-detect (_detect_default_branch, :2252); construct Pipeline.repos; keep the single-repo path working by wrapping. Primary = repos[0] unless a repo is explicitly flagged primary.", + "uniform_validators": "NEW: validate_visibility_uniformity(repos) and validate_auth_mode_uniformity(repos) — resolve each repo's visibility (gateway get_repo_visibility) and auth mode (gateway repositories.yaml), reject a mixed set with an actionable error that NAMES the offending repos and the two buckets. Same-name sets are NOT rejected (ruling #6). A prohibitive owner/repo re-key fan-out is a NEW HITL, never a silent fallback." + }, + "layer_4_agent_env_decollapse": { + "spawner": "kubernetes_spawner/_spawn.py (+ _worktree.py/_concurrent.py/_events.py): (a) re-key the repo->worktree map by FULL owner/repo (ruling #6); (b) expose the FULL map to the agent env (e.g. EGG_REPO_VOLUMES JSON owner/repo->path, EGG_PIPELINE_REPOS JSON list) — no repos[0] collapse; (c) for a SLICE agent (event-job carries slice_id), set EGG_REPO_PATH + EGG_PIPELINE_REPO to the SLICE'S repo worktree (cwd = slice repo, ruling #5); for pipeline-level agents (refine/plan), use the primary repo.", + "authorship": "commit_authorship_store.py:928-933: replace the 'prefer egg else repos[0]' heuristic with per-repo attribution keyed by the repo the commit lands in (each repo's commits attributed in that repo). Trace callers and thread the target repo.", + "overseer": "routes/pipelines.py:732: overseer_repo = pipeline.primary_repo (overseer is pipeline-wide; primary repo for model resolution is acceptable but must be explicit primary, not raw repos[0]).", + "sweep": "grep -rn 'repos\\[0\\]' at implement time to catch any site the refiner/this analysis missed; sandbox/egg_lib/sdlc_hitl.py:82 is guarded (len==1) and is NOT a collapse." + }, + "layer_5_per_repo_branch_pr": { + "context_pr": "_open_context_pr_at_implement_start (routes/pipelines.py:~11001): iterate the DISTINCT resolved slice repos (repos with >=1 slice, ruling #1); open one context PR per such repo on that repo's egg//work -> that repo's base_branch (effective_base per repo). Cross-reference sibling context/slice PRs in each body. A repo submitted but ending up with no slices gets NO branch and NO context PR.", + "slice_pr_and_worktree": "At slice run time: select the worktree for resolve_slice_repo(slice, pipeline) from the owner/repo-keyed map; create_slice_integration_branch(repo_path=that worktree); create_slice_pr(repo=that repo, head=slice integration branch, base=that repo's work branch or base). Same-repo dependency edges keep stacking on the integration branch as today; cross-repo edges do not stack." + }, + "layer_6_merge_gate_cq1": { + "detect": "A dependency edge slice-B depends_on slice-A is cross-repo iff resolve_slice_repo(A) != resolve_slice_repo(B). Derivable from Slice.repo — no new field for the auto path.", + "auto_merge_state_hold": "(default) When opening slice-B's PR while an upstream cross-repo slice-A PR is unmerged, pass draft=True (already supported). NEW gateway verb mark_pr_ready(repo, pr_number) (gh pr ready) in gateway.py + gateway_client/_pr.py. NEW merge-poll pass: on the existing reconcile cadence (extend stacked_pr_reconciler.py or add cross_repo_merge_gate.py), for each drafted cross-repo-dependent slice PR, check the upstream slice PR merge state (gh pr view --json state,mergedAt via a small gateway read) and call mark_pr_ready when merged. Development is NOT serialized — slice-B is worked in parallel; only its PR's ready-state waits.", + "hitl_external_condition_hold": "(exception) For edges the plan DECLARES as beyond-merge-state (release/publish, version-pin, genuine dev block), register a HITL decision (mcp__sdlc__register_open_question / decision queue) that holds slice-B's PR ready-transition until a human releases it. task_planner owns the exact declaration mechanism (recommended: an optional per-slice marker; default absent => auto). Do NOT automate release/version detection (cq-1 explicitly rejects it).", + "risk": "This is the part the issue flags as most-underestimated. Give it its own slice; the mark_ready verb + merge poll are genuinely new; the HITL half reuses the decision queue." + }, + "layer_7_scoping_and_surfaces": { + "test_gate_reviewer_diff": "Repo-parameterize the test-gate check-command resolution and the reviewer-diff range so both resolve against the slice's repo worktree + that repo's base (rulings #3, #5). Verify where these resolve today (run-loop / signals validation) and thread slice.repo.", + "status_naming": "pipeline id/naming keys off primary_repo (ruling #4); branch naming uniform (egg//work per repo); status surfaces (status_reporter.py + the pipelines status route) render the repos list and per-repo PR lists." + }, + "sequencing_rationale": "Slice.repo/Pipeline.repos (S1) is the root every other slice reads — it MUST land first (refiner hard part #1: refine/plan/implement all read contracts). The plan-parser slice (S2) is file-disjoint from all orchestrator work and parallel-capable after S1. The four pipelines.py-touching concerns (submission, env/overseer, context-PR+slice-routing, merge-gate hook) form a SERIAL SPINE under #3046 file-level overlap. Docs are the tail. Architect RECOMMENDS; task_planner owns the final DAG, ordering, and PR packaging — including whether to merge/split any pipelines.py slices or accept the same-file chain." + }, + "implementation_plan": { + "note": "Architect recommends; task_planner owns the final slice DAG. See 3393-architect-slices.yaml for the machine-readable recommendation. Recommended shape (single repo = egg; this pipeline implementing the feature is itself single-repo, so standard #3046 file-overlap rules apply to OUR slices):", + "slices": [ + {"id": "S1", "title": "Data model: Pipeline.repos + RepoSpec + Slice.repo + schema 1.3->1.4 migration + resolver", "files": ["orchestrator/models.py", "shared/egg_contracts/models.py"], "depends_on": [], "risk": "medium", "notes": "Load-bearing root. Additive after-stamp migration; back-compat synthesis for absent repos; resolve_slice_repo helper; round-trip + absent-field + N=1 unit tests."}, + {"id": "S2", "title": "Plan parser: `repo:` slice key + in-set validation", "files": ["shared/egg_contracts/plan_parser/_models.py", "shared/egg_contracts/plan_parser/_yaml_parse.py", "shared/egg_contracts/plan_parser/_markdown_parse.py", "shared/egg_contracts/plan_parser/_validators.py"], "depends_on": ["S1"], "risk": "low", "notes": "File-disjoint from all orchestrator slices; parallel-capable after S1. Additive/back-compat."}, + {"id": "S3", "title": "Submission: list-shaped submit_task/create_pipeline + uniform visibility + uniform auth-mode validators", "files": ["orchestrator/mcp_tools/_submit.py", "orchestrator/mcp_tools/_tool_defs.py", "orchestrator/routes/pipelines.py", "orchestrator/gateway_client/_pr.py", "gateway/gateway.py"], "depends_on": ["S1"], "risk": "medium", "notes": "Touches pipelines.py -> serial spine. New uniformity validators may need a small gateway auth-mode read verb."}, + {"id": "S4", "title": "Agent env: stop all three repos[0] collapses; owner/repo-keyed worktree map; per-slice repo cwd", "files": ["orchestrator/kubernetes_spawner/_spawn.py", "orchestrator/kubernetes_spawner/_worktree.py", "orchestrator/kubernetes_spawner/_events.py", "orchestrator/commit_authorship_store.py", "orchestrator/routes/pipelines.py"], "depends_on": ["S1", "S3"], "risk": "high", "notes": "Serial after S3 (both touch pipelines.py). Ruling #6 owner/repo re-key; grep sweep for other repos[0]."}, + {"id": "S5", "title": "Lazy-per-repo work branch + context PR; slice PR/worktree/integration-branch routed to slice.repo", "files": ["orchestrator/routes/pipelines.py"], "depends_on": ["S1", "S4"], "risk": "high", "notes": "Serial after S4. Context-PR opener becomes per-repo loop; slice PR routed to resolve_slice_repo(slice)."}, + {"id": "S6", "title": "cq-1 merge gate: draft-on-open + mark_ready verb + upstream-merge poll (auto) + HITL external-condition hold", "files": ["gateway/gateway.py", "orchestrator/gateway_client/_pr.py", "orchestrator/stacked_pr_reconciler.py", "orchestrator/routes/pipelines.py"], "depends_on": ["S1", "S2", "S5"], "risk": "high", "notes": "The most-underestimated part. NEW mark_pr_ready verb + merge poll; HITL half reuses the decision queue. Planner may split auto vs HITL halves (still serialized by shared files)."}, + {"id": "S7", "title": "Per-repo test-gate + reviewer-diff scoping; per-repo conventions", "files": ["orchestrator/routes/pipelines.py", "orchestrator/routes/signals/_validation.py"], "depends_on": ["S4", "S5"], "risk": "medium", "notes": "Verify resolution sites; thread slice.repo. May be small/absorbable into S5 at planner discretion."}, + {"id": "S8", "title": "Status + naming surfaces (per-repo PR lists; primary-repo naming)", "files": ["orchestrator/status_reporter.py", "orchestrator/routes/pipelines.py"], "depends_on": ["S1", "S5"], "risk": "low-medium", "notes": "Serial vs other pipelines.py slices."}, + {"id": "S9", "title": "Docs: architecture + CLAUDE.md + README (multi-repo model, merge-gate, uniformity rules)", "files": ["docs/architecture/", "orchestrator/CLAUDE.md", "shared/CLAUDE.md", "docs/guides/sdlc-pipeline.md"], "depends_on": ["S1", "S2", "S3", "S4", "S5", "S6", "S7", "S8"], "risk": "low", "notes": "Tail; snapshot current-state doctrine (#3288)."} + ], + "parallelism": "S1 root. S2 fully parallel after S1 (file-disjoint). S3->S4->S5->S6 (and S7,S8 interleaved) form a serial spine because all write orchestrator/routes/pipelines.py (#3046 file-level overlap). S9 tail. The planner may (a) merge S7 into S5, (b) split S6 into auto/HITL halves, or (c) accept a longer same-file chain — its call." + }, + "open_questions": [ + {"id": "cq-1", "status": "resolved", "resolution": "Two-tier merge-sequencing (auto merge-state draft->ready; HITL for beyond-merge-state). Folded into layer_6 and S6."}, + {"id": "arch-q1", "status": "for_planner", "question": "Exact declaration mechanism for an external-condition (HITL) cross-repo edge — an optional per-slice marker vs a plan-level annotation. Default absent => auto merge-state hold. task_planner owns the field/shape; do NOT automate release/version detection (cq-1)."}, + {"id": "arch-q2", "status": "for_planner", "question": "Whether auth-mode uniformity needs a NEW gateway read verb or can reuse an existing per-repo config lookup exposed through gateway_client. Verify at implement time; a new small read verb is acceptable."} + ], + "risk_assessment": [ + {"risk": "Contract schema migration read across refine/plan/implement before the field lands", "likelihood": "medium", "impact": "high", "mitigation": "S1 is the root; additive after-stamp (never mutates data), idempotent, guarded on exact prior version; None->primary resolver at read sites; round-trip + absent-field + N=1 regression tests before any slice writes Slice.repo."}, + {"risk": "repos[0] de-collapse misses a site -> a multi-repo pipeline silently uses the wrong repo", "likelihood": "medium", "impact": "high", "mitigation": "Fix the three named sites + grep -rn 'repos\\[0\\]' sweep; owner/repo re-key (ruling #6) so same-name repos don't collide; N=1 behavior-identical regression."}, + {"risk": "Merge-gate: mark_ready verb + merge poll are new machinery; a stuck poll leaves a dependent PR draft forever", "likelihood": "medium", "impact": "high", "mitigation": "Give S6 its own slice; poll on the existing reconcile cadence with bounded, idempotent checks; if the auto path cannot resolve (e.g. a release condition), fall through to the HITL hold rather than hanging; log held PRs on status surfaces."}, + {"risk": "pipelines.py serial spine lengthens the DAG and slows delivery", "likelihood": "high", "impact": "medium", "mitigation": "Honest under #3046 file-level overlap; the planner may merge slices or accept the chain. S1/S2 front-loaded and parallel-capable; docs at the tail."}, + {"risk": "Uniform visibility/auth validation gap lets private content leak into a public PR surface", "likelihood": "low", "impact": "high", "mitigation": "Reject mixed sets at submission with an actionable error naming offending repos; visibility + auth resolved gateway-side; the check is a hard gate, not advisory."}, + {"risk": "Per-repo conventions not actually applied (agent runs egg's make lint against a foreign repo)", "likelihood": "medium", "impact": "medium", "mitigation": "Ruling #5 — slice agent cwd = slice repo worktree; test gate resolves THAT repo's check commands; S7 makes the scoping explicit and reviewed, not assumed."}, + {"risk": "Cross-repo dependency mistaken for a same-repo stack (branch stacking attempted across repos)", "likelihood": "medium", "impact": "medium", "mitigation": "Cross-repo edge (resolved repos differ) => draft-hold, NOT integration-branch stacking; same-repo edges keep the existing stack; branch the two paths explicitly in S5/S6."} + ], + "binding_invariants": [ + "Data model is list-shaped end to end (Pipeline.repos, Slice.repo); NOTHING assumes len(repos) in {1,2} or a primary+secondary shape.", + "Slice <-> repo is 1:1: a slice's worktree, branch, review diff, test scope, and PR all live in exactly one repo; cross-repo work = multiple slices + dependencies, never one slice touching two repos.", + "Schema bump 1.3->1.4 is ADDITIVE + idempotent + guarded on the exact prior version; absent Slice.repo resolves to the pipeline primary repo at READ time (Contract model cannot inject it).", + "Absent Pipeline.repos (legacy JSON) synthesizes a single-repo list from repo/base_branch; N=1 single-repo pipelines are behavior-identical (single work branch, single context PR, non-draft slice PRs, no merge-gate) — AC-8 regression baseline.", + "Submission REJECTS mixed-visibility and mixed-auth-mode repo sets with actionable errors; same-name sets are NOT rejected (owner/repo re-key, ruling #6).", + "Agent env exposes the FULL owner/repo-keyed worktree map; all three repos[0] collapses removed + grep sweep; slice agents cwd into their slice's repo worktree under that repo's conventions (ruling #5).", + "Cross-repo ordering gates MERGE-READINESS, not development (cq-1): dependent slice developed in parallel, PR opened DRAFT, auto-marked ready when the upstream slice PR merges; beyond-merge-state conditions are HITL-held/released, never programmatically detected.", + "Lazy-per-repo (ruling #1): every repo with >=1 slice gets its own work branch + context PR; a repo with no slices gets neither.", + "No cross-repo atomic merge is attempted (impossible on GitHub); v1 ships an ordering HOLD only." + ], + "metrics": { + "load_bearing_gap": "data model (Pipeline single-repo scalar + Slice has no repo)", + "schema_bump": "1.3 -> 1.4 (additive after-stamp)", + "repos0_collapse_sites": 3, + "genuinely_new_machinery": "uniform visibility/auth validators + mark_pr_ready verb + upstream-merge poll (draft->ready)", + "pipelines_py_touching_slices": 5, + "recommended_slices": 9 + } +} diff --git a/.egg-state/agent-outputs/3393-architect-slices.yaml b/.egg-state/agent-outputs/3393-architect-slices.yaml new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..187af613d7 --- /dev/null +++ b/.egg-state/agent-outputs/3393-architect-slices.yaml @@ -0,0 +1,161 @@ +# Recommended slice DAG for issue #3393 — multi-repo pipelines (coordinated PRs across repos). +# Architect RECOMMENDS; task_planner owns the final DAG, ordering, and PR packaging. +# +# CONTEXT: this pipeline implements the feature and is itself a SINGLE-repo (egg) pipeline, +# so the slice<->repo 1:1 rule (which governs pipelines that USE the feature) does not shape +# OUR slices — standard #3046 FILE-LEVEL overlap rules do. The dominant constraint is that +# orchestrator/routes/pipelines.py is still one ~27k-line module (the #3312 slice-19 split is +# NOT landed): FIVE of this feature's concerns write it, so under #3046 they cannot run +# concurrently and form a SERIAL SPINE. The data model (S1) is the load-bearing root every +# other slice reads and MUST land first (refiner hard part #1: refine/plan/implement all read +# contracts). The plan-parser slice (S2) is file-disjoint from all orchestrator work and is the +# only fully parallel-capable branch after S1. Docs (S9) are the tail. +# +# BINDING operator rulings honored (see .egg-state/drafts/3393-analysis.md): #1 lazy-per-repo +# branch+context-PR; #3 per-repo test/diff scoping; #4 primary-repo naming + per-repo PR status; +# #5 per-repo conventions (slice agent cwd = slice repo worktree); #6 owner/repo re-key of the +# worktree map (reject-same-name FORBIDDEN; prohibitive re-key fan-out is a NEW HITL). HITL cq-1 +# two-tier merge gate is BINDING (auto merge-state draft->ready; HITL for beyond-merge-state). +slices: + - id: 1 + name: |- + Data model — Pipeline.repos + RepoSpec + Slice.repo + schema 1.3->1.4 + resolver + goal: |- + LOAD-BEARING ROOT. orchestrator/models.py: add RepoSpec{repo:str (owner/name), + base_branch:str|None}; add Pipeline.repos:list[RepoSpec] (default_factory=list); + model validator synthesizes repos=[RepoSpec(repo,base_branch)] when repos absent but + legacy repo set (back-compat), and mirrors repos[0] back onto repo/base_branch for + legacy readers; add primary_repo property (repos[0].repo). shared/egg_contracts/models.py: + add Slice.repo:str|None (pattern owner/name, default None); bump Contract.schemaVersion + '1.3'->'1.4' with _migrate_schema_version_to_1_4 as an ADDITIVE after-stamp mirroring + _migrate_schema_version_to_1_3 verbatim (guard schemaVersion=='1.3'; idempotent; no field + mutation); update the schemaVersion docstring (:844-862). Add resolve_slice_repo(slice, + pipeline)->slice.repo or pipeline.primary_repo at the ORCHESTRATOR layer (the Contract + model carries no repo field, so None->primary CANNOT be a model validator). Unit tests: + round-trip, absent-field back-compat (pre-1.4 contract, legacy pipeline JSON), N=1 + behavior-identical. NOTHING may assume len(repos) in {1,2}. + dependencies: none + - id: 2 + name: |- + Plan parser — `repo:` slice key + in-set validation + goal: |- + shared/egg_contracts/plan_parser/_models.py: add 'repo' to _KNOWN_SLICE_KEYS (:106-117). + _yaml_parse.py: extract phase_data.get('repo') alongside goal/dependencies and feed + Slice.repo. _markdown_parse.py: mirror if the markdown fallback must carry repo. + _validators.py: when slice.repo present it must be in the pipeline's submitted repo set; + a CROSS-REPO dependency edge is LEGAL (the intended cross-repo-ordering expression) — do + NOT reject it. Additive + back-compat (absent repo key => Slice.repo None => resolver + default). Unknown-key warning (#2870) auto-covers typos once 'repo' is known. FILE-DISJOINT + from every orchestrator slice — fully parallel-capable after slice 1. + dependencies: + - 1 + - id: 3 + name: |- + Submission — list-shaped submit_task/create_pipeline + uniform visibility + auth-mode validators + goal: |- + orchestrator/mcp_tools/_submit.py + _tool_defs.py: accept repos (list of {repo,base_branch}) + in addition to legacy repo/base_branch; wrap a single repo into a one-element list + server-side; reject empty set. routes/pipelines.py create_pipeline (:~2071): parse repos[], + apply the existing owner/name regex (:2163) per repo, per-repo base-branch auto-detect + (_detect_default_branch :2252), construct Pipeline.repos; keep single-repo path working. + NEW validate_visibility_uniformity + validate_auth_mode_uniformity: resolve each repo's + visibility (gateway get_repo_visibility) and auth mode (repositories.yaml), REJECT a mixed + set with an actionable error NAMING the offending repos + buckets. Same-name sets NOT + rejected (ruling #6). May need a small new gateway auth-mode read verb (gateway.py + + gateway_client/_pr.py). SERIAL SPINE (touches pipelines.py). + dependencies: + - 1 + - id: 4 + name: |- + Agent env — stop all three repos[0] collapses; owner/repo-keyed worktree map; per-slice cwd + goal: |- + kubernetes_spawner/_spawn.py (+ _worktree.py/_events.py): re-key repo->worktree map by FULL + owner/repo (ruling #6); expose the FULL map to agent env (EGG_REPO_VOLUMES JSON + owner/repo->path, EGG_PIPELINE_REPOS JSON list) — remove the repos[0] collapse (:449-464/ + :523); for a SLICE agent (event-job carries slice_id) set EGG_REPO_PATH + EGG_PIPELINE_REPO + to the SLICE's repo worktree (cwd=slice repo, ruling #5), pipeline-level agents use primary. + commit_authorship_store.py:928-933: replace 'prefer egg else repos[0]' with per-repo + attribution keyed by the target repo (thread it through callers). routes/pipelines.py:732: + overseer_repo = pipeline.primary_repo (explicit primary, not raw repos[0]). Implement-time + grep -rn 'repos\[0\]' sweep (sdlc_hitl.py:82 is guarded, NOT a collapse). SERIAL SPINE after + slice 3 (both write pipelines.py). + dependencies: + - 1 + - 3 + - id: 5 + name: |- + Per-repo work branch + context PR (lazy-per-repo); slice PR/worktree/integration-branch -> slice.repo + goal: |- + routes/pipelines.py _open_context_pr_at_implement_start (:~11001): iterate the DISTINCT + resolved slice repos (repos with >=1 slice, ruling #1) and open ONE context PR per such repo + on that repo's egg//work -> that repo's base_branch (effective_base per repo); + cross-reference sibling PRs in each body; a submitted repo with NO slices gets neither branch + nor PR. Slice run time: select the worktree for resolve_slice_repo(slice,pipeline) from the + owner/repo-keyed map; create_slice_integration_branch(repo_path=that worktree); + create_slice_pr(repo=that repo, head=slice integration branch, base=that repo's work branch/ + base). Same-repo dependency edges keep stacking on the integration branch as today; cross-repo + edges do NOT stack. SERIAL SPINE after slice 4 (worktree map keyed by repo). + dependencies: + - 1 + - 4 + - id: 6 + name: |- + cq-1 merge gate — draft-on-open + mark_ready verb + upstream-merge poll (auto) + HITL external-condition hold + goal: |- + THE MOST-UNDERESTIMATED PART. Detect: edge B depends_on A is cross-repo iff + resolve_slice_repo(A)!=resolve_slice_repo(B) (no new field for the auto path). AUTO merge-state + hold (default): open B's PR draft=True (already supported) while upstream A PR unmerged; NEW + gateway verb mark_pr_ready(repo,pr_number) (gh pr ready) in gateway/gateway.py + + gateway_client/_pr.py; NEW merge-poll pass on the existing reconcile cadence (extend + stacked_pr_reconciler.py or add cross_repo_merge_gate.py) that checks upstream slice PR merge + state (gh pr view --json state,mergedAt via a small gateway read) and calls mark_ready on + merge — development NOT serialized, only PR ready-state waits. HITL external-condition hold + (exception, plan-DECLARED release/publish/version-pin edges): register a decision-queue HITL + that holds B's ready-transition until a human releases; default absent => auto; do NOT + automate release/version detection (cq-1). If the auto path cannot resolve, fall through to + the HITL hold rather than hanging; surface held PRs on status. Planner may split auto vs HITL + halves (still serialized by shared files). SERIAL SPINE after slice 5. + dependencies: + - 1 + - 2 + - 5 + - id: 7 + name: |- + Per-repo test-gate + reviewer-diff scoping; per-repo conventions + goal: |- + Repo-parameterize the test-gate check-command resolution and the reviewer-diff range so both + resolve against the slice's repo worktree + that repo's base (rulings #3, #5) — today they + assume the single pipeline repo. Verify the resolution sites (run-loop in routes/pipelines.py; + routes/signals/_validation.py) and thread slice.repo. May be small; planner may ABSORB into + slice 5. SERIAL SPINE (pipelines.py). + dependencies: + - 4 + - 5 + - id: 8 + name: |- + Status + naming surfaces — per-repo PR lists; primary-repo naming + goal: |- + pipeline id/naming keys off primary_repo (ruling #4); branch naming uniform (egg//work per + repo); status surfaces render the repos list + per-repo PR lists. Files: status_reporter.py + + the pipelines status route (routes/pipelines.py). SERIAL SPINE vs other pipelines.py slices. + dependencies: + - 1 + - 5 + - id: 9 + name: |- + Docs — architecture + CLAUDE.md + README (multi-repo model, merge gate, uniformity rules) + goal: |- + Document the multi-repo model (Pipeline.repos, Slice.repo, primary repo), the lazy-per-repo + branch/context-PR shape, the cq-1 two-tier merge gate, and the uniform-visibility/auth rules. + Files: docs/architecture/*, orchestrator/CLAUDE.md, shared/CLAUDE.md, docs/guides/ + sdlc-pipeline.md. Snapshot current-state doctrine (#3288) — no SDLC-artifact/ledger framing. + Tail; depends on all. + dependencies: + - 1 + - 2 + - 3 + - 4 + - 5 + - 6 + - 7 + - 8 diff --git a/.egg-state/agent-outputs/3393-risk_analyst-output.json b/.egg-state/agent-outputs/3393-risk_analyst-output.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..04f4d508b5 --- /dev/null +++ b/.egg-state/agent-outputs/3393-risk_analyst-output.json @@ -0,0 +1,176 @@ +{ + "issue": 3393, + "phase": "plan", + "agent": "risk_analyst", + "title": "Risk assessment — multi-repo pipelines (coordinated PRs across repositories in one pipeline)", + "grounding_sha": "f085265b7", + "grounded_against": "live worktree at HEAD f085265b7 on 2026-07-02; every file:line anchor below re-verified against this tree (the refiner grounded at 20b476173 — tree has since advanced, anchors re-checked).", + "summary": "v1 scope is operator-ratified and well-bounded (8 ACs in the refine analysis, cq-1 resolved, six binding design rulings). The infra is genuinely more multi-repo-ready than a naive read suggests. The residual risk is NOT in the parts the issue calls out as ready (worktree list, per-repo creds, repo-parameterized PR creation) — it is in three under-appreciated seams: (1) the contract schema itself carries NO repo dimension, so 'Slice.repo absent => primary' has nothing to resolve 'primary' against at load time; (2) 'stop the repos[0] collapse' is not a pure deletion — EGG_PIPELINE_REPO is a HARD-REQUIRED downstream consumer (overseer entrypoint raises without it); (3) the cq-1 auto-release merge-poll is net-new orchestration with unspecified terminal/failure states. Proceed with the mitigations below folded into the plan.", + "overall_risk_level": "MEDIUM-HIGH", + "overall_risk": "MEDIUM-HIGH", + "recommendation": "PROCEED_WITH_MITIGATIONS", + "verdict": "PROCEED_WITH_MITIGATIONS", + "scope_note": "Assesses the operator-ratified v1 scope in the refine analysis (.egg-state/drafts/3393-analysis.md): arbitrary N repos, slice<->repo 1:1, uniform visibility + uniform auth per run, cross-repo ordering via slice deps, and the cq-1 two-tier merge-sequencing hold. Mixed auth, richer merge machinery, and cross-repo atomic merge are OUT of v1 and out of scope here.", + "plan_reconciliation": "No architect-output/architect-slices or task_planner plan-draft has been proposed at the time of this assessment (BRC state: all plan-phase producers WORKING, zero CONSENSUS_PROPOSE; transcript live=true). This assessment is therefore GROUNDED IN THE REFINE ANALYSIS + LIVE TREE, not in a plan. Reviewer obligation (risk_analyst also reviews in plan): when the architect and task_planner propose, reconcile their slice DAG + task breakdown against R1-R7 below and NACK if R1 (contract repo dimension), R2 (EGG_PIPELINE_REPO consumers preserved), or R3 (merge-poll terminal states) are unaddressed.", + "risks": [ + { + "id": "R1", + "title": "The Contract model has NO repo dimension — 'Slice.repo absent => primary repo' has no 'primary' to resolve against at contract-load time", + "category": "schema-migration", + "severity": "HIGH", + "likelihood": "CERTAIN", + "impact": "AC-3 mandates 'Slice.repo exists (absent => primary repo via schema migration)'. But the migration is a Contract-level model_validator that sees only the contract dict. shared/egg_contracts/models.py has NO repo field on Contract (grep 'repo' hits only field docstrings at :351 and :435, never a real field). The primary repo lives on Pipeline.repo (orchestrator/models.py:1131) — a DIFFERENT model, in the orchestrator, NOT persisted inside the contract JSON. So an old contract loaded post-migration cannot fill absent Slice.repo => primary: the value simply is not reachable from where the migration runs. Scoping this to 'just add Slice.repo' silently breaks back-compat load of every existing single-repo contract.", + "description": "The real schema change is TWO fields, not one: (a) a repo dimension on the Contract (a repos list and/or primary_repo), populated at the pipeline->contract boundary and persisted, and (b) Slice.repo, whose absent-field migration defaults from (a). The refine analysis' 'four migration precedents exist' is TRUE for the mechanism (schemaVersion 1.0->1.1->1.2->1.3, models.py:1017-1119) but those precedents are all self-contained additive stamps that need no cross-model context; this one needs a value that today lives outside the contract.", + "affected_files": [ + "shared/egg_contracts/models.py:322 (class Slice)", + "shared/egg_contracts/models.py:841 (schemaVersion field)", + "shared/egg_contracts/models.py:949 (_migrate_phases_to_slices validator)", + "shared/egg_contracts/models.py:1017-1119 (schemaVersion migration precedents)", + "orchestrator/models.py:1131 (Pipeline.repo singleton — the value the migration needs but cannot see)" + ], + "mitigations": [ + "Plan must add a Contract-level repo dimension (repos list + designated primary) as part of the same schema bump, populated at the pipeline->contract handoff, BEFORE any Slice.repo work.", + "Slice.repo absent-field migration defaults from the Contract's primary repo — write a migration test that loads a pre-1.4 single-repo contract JSON fixture and asserts every slice.repo == primary.", + "Bump schemaVersion (1.3 -> 1.4) with a migration validator in the established additive pattern; do NOT mutate existing fields." + ], + "requires_human_review": false + }, + { + "id": "R2", + "title": "'Stop the repos[0] collapse' is NOT a pure deletion — EGG_PIPELINE_REPO is a HARD-REQUIRED downstream consumer that a naive removal breaks", + "category": "regression", + "severity": "HIGH", + "likelihood": "LIKELY", + "impact": "AC-4 says 'all three repos[0] collapse sites are gone'. Two of the three (kubernetes_spawner/_spawn.py:452,464 -> :523) do not merely collapse a list; they PRODUCE the EGG_PIPELINE_REPO env var that downstream code HARD-REQUIRES: sandbox/entrypoint/_environment.py:46-59 RAISES for the overseer role if EGG_PIPELINE_REPO is absent; sandbox/egg_lib/orch_cli/_overseer.py:137-140 errors without it; sandbox/egg_lib/overseer_issue_body.py:106 reads it to target a single repo for 'gh issue create' (the gateway enforces --repo $EGG_PIPELINE_REPO). Deleting the collapse without preserving a primary-repo scalar breaks overseer issue-filing pipeline-wide.", + "description": "The requirement is 'stop collapsing the LIST to repos[0] where the full map is needed' — NOT 'delete the primary-repo scalar'. The overseer legitimately files issues against ONE repo (the primary). The fix is to EXPOSE THE FULL owner/repo->worktree MAP ALONGSIDE a retained primary-repo scalar, not INSTEAD of it. commit_authorship_store.py:932-933 (prefers repo named 'egg', else repos[0]) and routes/pipelines.py:732 (overseer_repo) are the other two — each needs a deliberate 'what is the right per-repo value here' decision, not a blanket removal.", + "affected_files": [ + "orchestrator/kubernetes_spawner/_spawn.py:452,464,523 (produces EGG_PIPELINE_REPO)", + "orchestrator/commit_authorship_store.py:932-933", + "orchestrator/routes/pipelines.py:732 (overseer_repo)", + "sandbox/entrypoint/_environment.py:46-59 (RAISES without EGG_PIPELINE_REPO for overseer)", + "sandbox/egg_lib/orch_cli/_overseer.py:137-140 (consumer)", + "sandbox/egg_lib/overseer_issue_body.py:106 (consumer)" + ], + "mitigations": [ + "Retain a primary-repo scalar (EGG_PIPELINE_REPO) for the overseer/issue-filing consumers; ADD the full owner/repo->worktree map as new env (do not remove the scalar).", + "AC-4's 'collapse sites are gone' must be read as 'no site silently assumes exactly-one/exactly-two'; each of the three sites gets an explicit per-repo or primary-repo decision, with the overseer path proven to still resolve its single target repo.", + "Add a regression test: an N=2 pipeline still sets EGG_PIPELINE_REPO to the primary and the overseer entrypoint does not raise." + ], + "requires_human_review": false + }, + { + "id": "R3", + "title": "cq-1 auto-release merge-poll is net-new orchestration with UNSPECIFIED terminal/failure states — the dependent slice's draft PR can hang forever", + "category": "correctness", + "severity": "MEDIUM-HIGH", + "likelihood": "LIKELY", + "impact": "cq-1 (binding) requires the orchestrator to poll the upstream slice's PR merge-state and auto-mark the dependent slice's draft PR ready-for-review on merge. The draft primitive EXISTS (create_pr/create_slice_pr take draft=bool; _pr.py:42,152), but the poll-loop + draft->ready state machine does NOT. Undefined terminal states are the trap: upstream PR CLOSED-not-merged, squash/rebase-merge (the merge commit SHA != the PR head, so naive SHA-equality merge-detection misfires), force-push to the upstream branch, or upstream PR never merging. Without defined terminal handling the dependent PR silently stays draft forever, or auto-readies on a false merge signal.", + "description": "cq-1 also mandates a SECOND hold kind: beyond-merge-state conditions (release/publish waits, version-pinning) are HITL-resolved, NOT polled. So v1 needs (a) a merge-state poll + idempotent draft->ready transition, AND (b) a HITL hold type, AND (c) a rule that classifies each cross-repo dependency edge into (a) vs (b). The classification default (merge-state hold unless the plan identifies a release/publish/version-pin condition) is planner mechanics per the refine analysis, but the FAILURE semantics of the poll (closed-unmerged upstream => fail the dependent? escalate to HITL?) are NOT resolved by cq-1 and must be pinned by the plan.", + "affected_files": [ + "orchestrator/gateway_client/_pr.py:31-137 (create_pr, draft=), :139-164 (create_slice_pr, draft=)", + "orchestrator/routes/pipelines.py (context-PR + slice-PR orchestration; new poll-loop lands here)", + "shared/egg_contracts/models.py:362-369 (Slice.dependencies — the ordering substrate)" + ], + "mitigations": [ + "Plan MUST specify: poll cadence, merge-detection that tolerates squash/rebase merges (use the PR 'merged' boolean / merged_at, not head-SHA equality), and idempotent draft->ready.", + "Plan MUST specify terminal handling for upstream CLOSED-unmerged (recommend: do NOT auto-ready; escalate to HITL) and a bound/timeout so a never-merging upstream does not hang the dependent indefinitely.", + "Two hold kinds, two release paths (auto vs HITL) must be distinct slice/PR states, each observable in the status surface." + ], + "requires_human_review": true + }, + { + "id": "R4", + "title": "Visibility + auth uniformity validation is genuinely new submission code; a LATE check risks partial-setup leakage of private content onto public surfaces", + "category": "security", + "severity": "MEDIUM", + "likelihood": "POSSIBLE", + "impact": "The refine analysis confirms there is NO submission-time visibility validation today (per-repo get_repo_visibility exists at gateway/repo_visibility.py; private mode is a GLOBAL gateway posture). _compute_gateway_mode (orchestrator/routes/pipelines.py:3020-3033) derives session mode from a SINGLE pipeline.repo's visibility. With N repos, the uniformity check (all-private or all-public; all-same-auth-mode) is new code that MUST run at submission ENTRY, before any per-repo worktree/session/PR setup. If the check runs late (after checkout/session registration), a mixed set could partially provision and let private-repo content flow through shared plan/contract/PR surfaces — exactly the leak the requirement exists to prevent.", + "description": "Two validations, same shape, both new: (1) uniform visibility (reject mixed private/public), (2) uniform auth mode (reject mixed bot/user — mixed auth is explicitly deferred). Both must reject with actionable errors. Same-NAME repo sets are NOT rejected (operator ruling #6: resolve via owner/repo re-key, see R5).", + "affected_files": [ + "orchestrator/routes/pipelines.py:2107-2109 (submission reads singular repo/base_branch today)", + "orchestrator/routes/pipelines.py:3020-3033 (_compute_gateway_mode, singleton visibility)", + "orchestrator/mcp_tools/_submit.py:78-89 (submit_task singular repo)", + "gateway/repo_visibility.py:407-425 (per-repo visibility lookup)" + ], + "mitigations": [ + "Validate visibility + auth uniformity at submission ENTRY, before any per-repo checkout or session registration — fail closed on mixed sets.", + "_compute_gateway_mode must read the run's uniform visibility from the validated repo set (any member is representative once uniformity is proven), not an arbitrary pipeline.repo.", + "Add negative tests: mixed-visibility set rejected; mixed-auth set rejected; both with actionable error messages." + ], + "requires_human_review": false + }, + { + "id": "R5", + "title": "Worktree map re-key from bare-name to owner/repo (operator ruling #6) is a fan-out; a missed consumer reading by bare name against an owner/repo-keyed map fails at runtime", + "category": "correctness", + "severity": "MEDIUM", + "likelihood": "POSSIBLE", + "impact": "The agent-facing repo->path map is keyed by bare repo NAME today (refiner grounding correction #2). Operator ruling #6 MANDATES re-keying by full owner/repo (the reject-same-name shortcut is FORBIDDEN). Re-keying changes the key at EVERY read site: spawner repo_volumes (kubernetes_spawner/_spawn.py:45, _concurrent.py:117), the agent env exposure, and any guarded single-repo readers (e.g. sandbox/egg_lib/sdlc_hitl.py:82, len==1-guarded). A consumer still reading by bare name against an owner/repo-keyed map gets KeyError/None at runtime.", + "description": "Operator ruling #6 also says: if the re-key fan-out proves prohibitive at plan time, that is a NEW HITL to surface — NEVER a silent fallback to reject-same-name. The plan must enumerate every map consumer and confirm each is updated, or raise the HITL.", + "affected_files": [ + "orchestrator/gateway_client/_worktree.py:74-79 (map keyed by bare name today)", + "orchestrator/kubernetes_spawner/_spawn.py:45,283 (repo_volumes)", + "orchestrator/kubernetes_spawner/_concurrent.py:117", + "sandbox/egg_lib/sdlc_hitl.py:82 (guarded single-repo reader)" + ], + "mitigations": [ + "Enumerate all worktree-map consumers (grep the map's field/param names) and update each to owner/repo keys in the same slice.", + "If fan-out is prohibitive, surface a NEW HITL decision (per ruling #6) — do not fall back to name-uniqueness assumptions.", + "Add a test with two same-name repos under different owners (ownerA/foo, ownerB/foo) that would collide under bare-name keying." + ], + "requires_human_review": false + }, + { + "id": "R6", + "title": "Per-repo conventions (AC-7): test gate + reviewer diff must run under the SLICE's repo conventions, not egg's — a hardcoded egg 'make lint/test' false-greens or false-fails foreign-repo slices", + "category": "correctness", + "severity": "MEDIUM", + "likelihood": "POSSIBLE", + "impact": "AC-7 (operator ruling #5) requires a slice's agent to operate under THAT slice's repo CLAUDE.md/linters/check commands, with cwd in that repo's worktree. If the test gate resolves check commands from egg's conventions (make lint / make test-all) rather than per-slice-repo, a foreign-repo slice either fails spuriously (no Makefile) or false-greens (egg tests pass while the foreign repo is untested). Slice<->repo 1:1 makes the SCOPING mechanical (the slice's repo only), but the command RESOLUTION per repo is the real work.", + "description": "Reviewer diffs are already single-repo per the 1:1 rule (git diff in the slice worktree vs that repo's base). The genuinely new mechanic is resolving each repo's check commands and running the gate in the correct worktree cwd.", + "affected_files": [ + "orchestrator test-gate / check-command resolution sites (plan must locate; egg's make targets must not be assumed for non-egg slices)" + ], + "mitigations": [ + "Test gate resolves check commands per slice repo (from that repo's convention/config), runs in the slice repo's worktree cwd.", + "Reviewer diff is git diff in the slice's worktree against that repo's base only — no cross-repo diff surface in v1.", + "Add a slice-in-non-egg-repo test asserting the gate does not invoke egg's make targets." + ], + "requires_human_review": false + }, + { + "id": "R7", + "title": "Naming / branch / status surfaces with repo no longer a scalar — many display sites, low correctness risk but easy to miss one", + "category": "maintainability", + "severity": "LOW", + "likelihood": "LIKELY", + "impact": "Operator ruling #4: pipeline id/naming keys off the PRIMARY repo (first in list unless explicitly flagged); branch naming uniform across repos; status surfaces render per-repo PR lists. Mostly mechanical, but the status surface now iterates N PRs and PR descriptions cross-reference siblings (AC-5). Missing a display site yields a confusing (not incorrect) surface.", + "description": "Low-severity but broad; call out so the planner budgets for the render sites and the cross-referencing PR-description text.", + "affected_files": [ + "orchestrator/routes/pipelines.py (status surfaces, context-PR opener ~11001-11250)", + "orchestrator/mcp_tools/_status.py" + ], + "mitigations": [ + "Primary-repo scalar drives pipeline id/naming (reuse the R2 retained primary).", + "Status surface renders per-repo PR lists; slice-PR descriptions cross-reference sibling PRs in the pipeline (AC-5)." + ], + "requires_human_review": false + } + ], + "areas_requiring_human_review": [ + "R3 terminal semantics: upstream PR CLOSED-not-merged (or never merging) — cq-1 resolved the happy-path auto-release but NOT the failure path. Recommend the plan default to 'do not auto-ready; escalate to HITL' plus a bound/timeout; if the planner cannot pin this from cq-1, it is a new HITL decision, not planner discretion.", + "R5 worktree re-key fan-out: if enumerating/updating every owner/repo map consumer is prohibitive at plan time, operator ruling #6 REQUIRES surfacing a new HITL decision rather than a silent name-uniqueness fallback." + ], + "rollback_plan": "The schema change is additive + version-stamped (schemaVersion 1.3 -> 1.4) following four precedents (models.py:1017-1119), so a bad migration is caught at load and old contracts remain readable. Single-repo N=1 is the explicit regression baseline (AC-8: no behavior change for N=1) — gate merge on the N=1 suite staying green. Keep the singular submit_task repo path working alongside the new list path (back-compat, AC-1); the list surface can be feature-gated at submission so a regression is contained to multi-repo submissions without affecting in-flight single-repo pipelines.", + "implementation_recommendations": [ + "Sequence the schema work FIRST (R1): Contract repo dimension + Slice.repo + migration land before any producer writes slice.repo, because refine/plan/implement all read contracts.", + "Treat 'stop the collapse' (R2) as 'expose the full owner/repo map ALONGSIDE a retained primary scalar', never as deleting EGG_PIPELINE_REPO — prove the overseer entrypoint still resolves its single target repo.", + "Pin R3 merge-poll terminal/failure states in the plan text (merged-boolean not SHA-equality; closed-unmerged => HITL; bounded poll).", + "Validate visibility + auth uniformity at submission entry, fail-closed, before any per-repo provisioning (R4).", + "Add the multi-repo regression tests each risk names; keep the N=1 suite as the hard merge gate." + ], + "performance_assessment": "Low concern. The new cost is the R3 merge-poll loop (one lightweight GH PR-state read per pending dependent slice per interval) and N worktrees per pipeline (the gateway already supports the worktree list). No hot-path change for single-repo pipelines. Choose a poll cadence that does not hammer the GH API; back off on rate limits.", + "security_assessment": "The load-bearing security control is R4: uniform-visibility validation prevents private-repo content from flowing through shared plan/contract/PR surfaces into a public repo. It MUST fail closed and run before any provisioning. Uniform-auth-mode validation (mixed bot/user deferred) similarly rejects mixed sets. Gateway push policy (check_branch_ownership) is repo-agnostic and fine under v1 uniform auth. No new secret-handling surface beyond the existing per-repo credential resolution (get_token_for_repo, already per-repo).", + "compatibility_assessment": "Back-compat is the primary correctness axis. R1 (contract needs a repo dimension for the absent=>primary default) is the sharp edge — an existing single-repo contract must load post-migration with every slice.repo == primary. AC-1 (singular submit still works) and AC-8 (N=1 no behavior change) are the regression contract. The additive schema-version pattern with four precedents makes the mechanism low-risk PROVIDED R1's cross-model context gap is closed.", + "overall_assessment": "PROCEED_WITH_MITIGATIONS. Scope is ratified and the infra is closer than it looks, but three seams are under-appreciated and load-bearing: R1 (the contract itself has no repo dimension, so the mandated Slice.repo absent=>primary migration has no context to resolve 'primary' — the schema change is two fields, not one), R2 (stopping the repos[0] collapse must PRESERVE a primary scalar because EGG_PIPELINE_REPO is a hard-required overseer consumer — a naive deletion regresses issue-filing), and R3 (the cq-1 auto-release merge-poll is net-new orchestration whose terminal/failure states are unspecified and can hang a dependent PR). R4 (fail-closed uniformity validation) is the security gate. Fold R1-R4 mitigations into the plan; R5-R7 are mechanical fan-out to budget for. Reviewer follow-up: NACK the architect/task_planner plan if R1, R2, or R3 are unaddressed." +} diff --git a/.egg-state/agent-outputs/refiner/brc-memory-issue-3393.md b/.egg-state/agent-outputs/refiner/brc-memory-issue-3393.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..8126c3cafe --- /dev/null +++ b/.egg-state/agent-outputs/refiner/brc-memory-issue-3393.md @@ -0,0 +1,106 @@ +# BRC memory — refiner — issue-3393 (refine phase) + +## Status + +- CURRENT: v5 proposed (iteration 2) — folds in the operator's iteration-1 + rulings as BINDING decisions (same standing as cq-1): section retitled + "Design questions — OPERATOR RULINGS (binding)"; items 1/3/4/5 marked + RATIFIED (substance unchanged); NEW ruling #6: worktree map re-keyed by + full `owner/repo` (option a) MANDATED, reject-same-name-sets FORBIDDEN + (contradicts arbitrary-N), prohibitive re-key fan-out at plan time = new + HITL, never silent fallback. Consistency fixes: correction #2 advice + sentence → points to ruling #6 (facts intact); AC-2 drops same-name + rejection; AC-4 adds owner/repo keying. cq-1 fold-in + grounding facts + untouched per directive. Human summary NOT touched (simplifier's). +- v4 (`63c824cfe`, ACKed by all three named reviewers): restored + `3393-analysis-human.md` byte-exact to the simplifier's `e88c16d61` + rendering, un-doing my v3 clobber. `3393-analysis.md` untouched (both + reviewers called it ACK-ready / "do not touch it further"). +- v3 (`c2a3a8e80`) folded in operator's cq-1 resolution correctly in the + analysis, but CLOBBERED the simplifier-owned human summary: my rebase + conflict "resolution" ran `git checkout --theirs` — in a REBASE, --theirs + is YOUR OWN commit being replayed, --ours is upstream — so I took my + stale copy wholesale: deleted their per-repo house-rules bullet and + replaced their hard-bit #1 (dropping the development-blocks element and + overstating "work proceeds in parallel either way"). Two NACKs + (reviewer_refine, reviewer_agent_design), both verified correct. +- HARD RULE going forward: `3393-analysis-human.md` is the SIMPLIFIER's + artifact — never edit it, even when directives say "update the refine + document(s)"; hand wording suggestions to the simplifier instead. +- v2 analysis (`4bb71004b`) addressed all three v1 NACKs in one round-trip. + Artifacts: `.egg-state/drafts/3393-analysis.md`, `3393-analysis-human.md`. +- HITL decision cq-1 registered: v1 merge-sequencing gate semantics + (poll+auto-release / HITL release / hybrid / other). +- v1 → three NACKs (reviewer_refine, reviewer_agent_design, + first_principles_reviewer); all conceded after live re-verification. +- v2 → ACKed by all three named reviewers (simplifier→refiner was pending); + operator then resolved HITL cq-1 at the phase gate and kicked back with + iteration feedback → v3. +- **cq-1 RESOLVED (operator, custom answer, BINDING):** two-tier + merge-sequencing — (a) plain merge ordering AUTOMATED: dependent slice + developed in parallel, PR held in draft, orchestrator auto-marks ready + when upstream PR merges; (b) beyond-merge-state blocks (release/publish + waits, version-pin choices, genuine development blocks) are HITL-resolved, + never programmatically detected. Folded into analysis (design rec #2, + hard part #2, AC-6, new "HITL Resolution (cq-1)" section) and the human + summary's hard-bit #1. No new HITL decisions induced. + +## v1 NACK resolutions (do not re-litigate — I verified reviewers were right) + +1. **Correction #1 was inverted (mine, not the issue's, error).** Client + method IS `create_worktrees` (plural, gateway_client/_worktree.py:13); + singular `create_worktree` is gateway-internal + (gateway/worktree_manager/_create.py:115). `repo_volumes` is the live + spawner param (_spawn.py:45, _concurrent.py:117) fed from + `WorktreeResult.worktrees` (_spawn.py:283). v2 rewrote correction #1 as a + two-layer naming map: client `create_worktrees` → `worktrees` → spawner + `repo_volumes`. +2. **THREE `repos[0]` collapse sites** (verified by my own grep): + kubernetes_spawner/_spawn.py:452/:464 (+:523 EGG_PIPELINE_REPO); + commit_authorship_store.py:932-933; routes/pipelines.py:732 + (overseer_repo). sandbox/egg_lib/sdlc_hitl.py:82 is guarded by + `len(repos)==1` — NOT a collapse; noted in analysis so nobody re-flags it. +3. **Per-repo conventions entailment added** (reviewer_agent_design ask): + design recommendation #5 + AC-7 — slice agent cwd = slice's repo + worktree; that repo's CLAUDE.md/linters/check commands govern. +4. Human summary "two spots" → "three spots". NOTE: the human summary was + also externally edited (work-branch/umbrella-PR bullet added) — those + edits are intentional, preserve them. + +## My verdict (stable across events) + +Issue #3393's concentrated-gap thesis HOLDS (grounded 2026-07-01; v1 at +`20b476173`, v2 commit follows). Scope operator-locked: arbitrary N repos, +slice↔repo 1:1 (`Slice.repo`), uniform visibility + uniform auth per run, +workable merge-sequencing hold. No descope; mixed auth + richer sequencing +deferred. + +## Grounding facts I will defend (file:line in analysis) + +- `Slice` (shared/egg_contracts/models.py:322-459) has NO repo field; + `dependencies: list[str]` exists; Contract schemaVersion 1.3, four + migration precedents. +- Worktree map keyed by BARE repo name → owner-collision risk; v1 re-keys to + owner/repo or rejects same-name sets (reviewers confirmed at + gateway.py:7740-7767). +- No submission-time visibility validation exists; private mode is global + gateway posture; per-repo `get_repo_visibility` exists. +- Session mode single-per-pipeline (gateway_client/_session.py:16-39) — + uniform-auth v1 maps onto it. +- `check_branch_ownership` repo-agnostic in logic, global-bot in config — + non-issue under v1 uniform auth. + +## Positions taken (keep consistent if NACKed again) + +- Lazy per-repo work branches/context PRs (only repos with ≥1 slice). +- Test gate + reviewer diff + agent conventions scope = slice's repo only. +- Merge-sequencing semantics = operator's call (cq-1); nothing pre-decided. +- Exactly ONE HITL question; the rest of the issue's design questions are + planner-phase mechanics. + +## If re-proposing again + +reviewer_agent_design said "expect ACK on v2 with just these two fixes"; +reviewer_refine and first_principles_reviewer requested only the naming + +enumeration fixes. Any NEW objection on v2 should be narrow — address it +without expanding scope, and re-verify disputed facts live before conceding. diff --git a/.egg-state/agent-outputs/simplifier/brc-memory-issue-3393.md b/.egg-state/agent-outputs/simplifier/brc-memory-issue-3393.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..40b852987b --- /dev/null +++ b/.egg-state/agent-outputs/simplifier/brc-memory-issue-3393.md @@ -0,0 +1,256 @@ +# simplifier — durable BRC memory — issue-3393 (refine phase) + +## Role contract (verified against shared/egg_contracts/artifact_spec.py) + +- Producer artifact (refine): `analysis-draft-human` at + `.egg-state/drafts/issue-3393-analysis-human.md` — a faithful, jargon-free + rendering of the refiner's `analysis-draft` + (`.egg-state/drafts/issue-3393-analysis.md`). Gated by `reviewer_refine` on + "faithful + jargon-free". Existence-only check at propose time. +- Dependency: I propose AFTER the refiner's CONSENSUS_PROPOSE + (coder→tester dependency pattern per agent_roles.py comment on SIMPLIFIER). + +## Event log + +### 2026-07-01 ~23:2x UTC — event action=propose (producer=simplifier) + +- BRC state: all agents WORKING, no CONSENSUS_PROPOSE from anyone yet + (transcript live=true, only HEARTBEATs). +- Refiner draft `.egg-state/drafts/issue-3393-analysis.md`: ABSENT locally, + ABSENT on all 3393 remote branches (`origin/egg/issue-3393/work`, + `origin/egg/multi-repo-pipelines-3393`, + `origin/egg/multi-repo-slice-pr-targeting-3393`). +- Verdict: **cannot propose yet — blocked on refiner's proposal.** Did not + fabricate an analysis-human from the raw task description; the artifact + contract requires faithfulness to the refiner's analysis, which is the + source of truth I must render. +- Action taken: emitted HEARTBEAT state=WAITING_ON_ROLE waiting_on=refiner; + exited without proposing. + +### 2026-07-01 ~23:3x UTC — event #2, action=propose (producer=simplifier) + +- Re-verified: refiner still WORKING; transcript filtered on + CONSENSUS_PROPOSE returns 0 items with live=true (real absence, not #3076 + structural emptiness). Draft still absent locally and on all three 3393 + remote branches after fresh `git fetch`. +- Verdict: **unchanged — still blocked on refiner's proposal.** Second + premature propose event; treating as pump noise, not anomaly (refiner + heartbeats are recent). If a THIRD premature propose arrives with the + refiner silent for a long interval, consider + `mcp__progress__overseer_alert` (anomaly=agent-heartbeat-stall, re: + refiner) instead of silently re-waiting. +- Action taken: re-emitted HEARTBEAT WAITING_ON_ROLE(refiner) + blocked + progress event; exited without proposing. + +### 2026-07-01 23:29 UTC — event #3, action=propose (producer=simplifier) + +- Still zero CONSENSUS_PROPOSE (live=true); no 3393 draft locally. +- Escalation check per event-#2 rule: refiner is NOT stalled — latest + heartbeat 23:27:58Z (WORKING, in-tool-loop liveness), ~1 min before this + event. This is pump re-spawn cadence, not an anomaly. No overseer alert. +- Verdict: unchanged — blocked on refiner proposal. Re-heartbeated + WAITING_ON_ROLE(refiner); exited. +- Revised escalation rule: alert only if a future premature propose finds + the refiner's newest heartbeat >15 min old with no CONSENSUS_PROPOSE. + +### 2026-07-01 23:29:50 UTC — event #4, action=propose + +- 25 s after event #3. Zero CONSENSUS_PROPOSE (live=true), no local draft. + Refiner heartbeat ~2 min old at last check — inside the 15-min threshold. + Verdict unchanged; re-heartbeated WAITING_ON_ROLE(refiner); exited. +- The pump is firing propose events at sub-minute cadence while upstream is + unready; this is orchestrator behavior, not something I can fix from this + role. Keeping responses minimal to avoid transcript noise. + +### 2026-07-01 23:30:32 UTC — event #5, action=propose + +- ~24 s after #4. Same state (0 proposals, live=true, no draft). Verdict + unchanged; heartbeat re-sent; exited. Escalation threshold still: refiner + heartbeat >15 min stale (would trip at ~23:43Z if refiner goes silent + after its last observed beat 23:27:58Z). + +### 2026-07-01 23:31:15 UTC — event #6, action=propose + +- Same state. Verdict unchanged; heartbeat re-sent; exited. +- NOTE for future events: pump cadence is ~25 s. To keep this file compact, + do NOT add a new section per identical event — update this line instead: + latest identical premature-propose event: **#6 at 23:31:15Z**. + +### 2026-07-01 ~23:36 UTC — event #8: reviewer_refine NACK v1 → fixed, re-proposed v2 + +- NACK reason: "two spots" must be "three spots" — third repos[0] collapse + at orchestrator/routes/pipelines.py:732 (overseer_repo). VERIFIED live by + grep: all three sites real (_spawn.py:452,464; + commit_authorship_store.py:932-933; pipelines.py:732). +- Also verified: gateway-client method is `create_worktrees` (PLURAL, + _worktree.py:13) — refiner's correction #1 was inverted, as the reviewer + said. My human draft never names the method ("machinery that checks out + code already accepts a list") so it needs no change for that. +- Fix applied: "two spots" → "three spots" + added plain-language sweep + clause ("a sweep at implementation time will catch any stragglers") per + reviewer's "keep the sweep language". +- Refiner v2 NOT yet proposed at fix time (transcript shows only v1). + OBLIGATION: when refiner v2 lands, re-check my draft's faithfulness + against it — expected v2 delta (three sites, un-inverted naming) is + already consistent with my v2, but verify anything else that changes. +- Re-proposed as my v2. + +### 2026-07-01 ~23:46 UTC — event #9: iteration-0 gate — HITL cq-1 resolved → v3 + +- Iteration-0 outcome: reviewer_refine ACKed my v2; refiner v2 (4bb71004b) + ACKed by all three of its reviewers; my reviewer edge simplifier->refiner + left "pending" in the frozen matrix (did not ACK v2 — iteration ended at + the operator gate; expect a fresh review event next iteration). +- HITL cq-1 RESOLVED (Other): plain merge ordering AUTOMATED — dependent + slice developed in parallel, PR held as draft, orchestrator auto-marks + ready when upstream merges. HITL only for beyond-merge-state conditions + (release/publish waits, version pinning) and genuine development blocks. +- Faithfulness recheck vs refiner v2 DISCHARGED: (a) three collapse sites — + my draft already correct; (b) two-layer naming — my draft never names the + method, no change; (c) NEW per-repo-conventions point (v2 design rec #5 / + AC-7) — ADDED to my draft ("that repo's own house rules" bullet). +- cq-1 resolution rendered into hard-bit #1 (replaces "open decision" + framing) directly from the operator's authoritative resolution text — + robust even if refiner's v3 wording differs. +- No new decisions induced (remaining mechanics are planner-owned). +- NEW OBLIGATION: when refiner v3 lands (their cq-1 update), re-check my + draft's faithfulness against it before/while ACKing my pending + simplifier->refiner review edge. + +### 2026-07-01 ~23:59 UTC — event #10: iteration-1 gate — operator ratifies 4 design rulings → iteration-2 proposal + +- Operator directive (iteration 1): the four design recommendations are now + BINDING operator decisions (same standing as cq-1): (1) lazy-per-repo + work branch + context PR RATIFIED; (2) worktree keying → option (a) + re-key by full owner/repo, option (b) reject-same-name RULED OUT + (contradicts arbitrary-N); prohibitive fan-out ⇒ new HITL, never silent + (b); (3) test-gate/reviewer-diff single-repo scoping RATIFIED; (4) + naming/status/per-repo conventions RATIFIED. +- INCIDENT NOTE: refiner's v3 commit (c2a3a8e80) CLOBBERED my + 3393-analysis-human.md; their 63c824cfe restored it. Verified my worktree + file == my e88c16d61 content (empty diff) before editing. Watch for + clobbers whenever the refiner re-proposes. +- Faithfulness vs refiner 63c824cfe DISCHARGED: their cq-1 fold-in matches + my hard-bit-1 rendering (both derive from the operator resolution text); + no new content requiring summary changes beyond this directive. +- My edits: hard-bit #3 rewritten (re-key by owner/repo decided; rejection + ruled out; prohibitive ⇒ new operator decision); added "Where decisions + stand" section marking all five rulings binding. cq-1 paragraph and + grounding/good-news sections left untouched per "no other changes". +- simplifier->refiner review edge STILL pending — refiner must fold the + ratifications into the analysis (v4); review when their propose event + reaches me. + +### 2026-07-02 ~00:02 UTC — event #11: reviewer_refine NACK iteration-2 v1 → v2 + +- NACK (one-phrase): naming bullet dropped the operator's explicit-flag + escape hatch — "first in list UNLESS EXPLICITLY FLAGGED". Stating a + stricter-than-operator rule inside the binding "Where decisions stand" + section was the defect. Fixed with the reviewer's suggested phrasing: + "named after its primary repo — the first in the list unless the + submitter explicitly marks another as primary". All else verified + faithful by the reviewer. +- Context from the refiner's parallel NACK (read in full): refiner v4 had + AGAIN clobbered my file (deleted house-rules bullet, rewrote my hard-bit + #1 dropping the fourth cq-1 element); reviewer ordered them to revert my + artifact to e88c16d and never overwrite it again — clobber-watch note + validated; keep verifying my file's integrity at every event. +- Re-proposed as iteration-2 v2. + +### 2026-07-02 00:04–00:05 UTC — events #12–#13: REFINE COMPLETE → PLAN phase + +- DURABILITY LESSON (this entry is a re-write): the event-#12 memory edit + was made but NOT committed before exit; the phase-transition worktree + reseed discarded it. **Commit the memory file in the same invocation as + every edit** — uncommitted state does not survive phase gates. +- Refine converged at my 899b1dc40 + refiner v5 47c1d9db5 (binding-rulings + fold-in; my file untouched — integrity verified). My simplifier->refiner + review edge was closed unexercised by the phase transition; moot. +- PLAN matrix: producers architect, task_planner, risk_analyst, simplifier; + reviewer_plan gates. My producer artifact: `plan-draft-human` at + `.egg-state/drafts/3393-plan-human.md`, faithful jargon-free rendering of + task_planner's `3393-plan.md`, produced AFTER task_planner proposes + (artifact_spec.py lines 162-170). +- Events #12 (00:04Z) and #13 (00:05Z): 3393-plan.md ABSENT, zero plan + CONSENSUS_PROPOSE (live=true), task_planner WORKING. Heartbeated + WAITING_ON_ROLE(task_planner) both times. Escalation: alert only if + task_planner heartbeat >15 min stale with no propose. Plans take longer + than analyses — expect a longer quiet stretch; keep per-event handling + minimal. Latest identical premature event: **#13 at 00:05Z** (update this + line in place; no new sections for identical events). +- Carry-forwards: per-event integrity check of my artifacts (refiner + clobbered twice in refine); binding rulings (cq-1 + 4 ratifications) must + survive into plan + my summary; propose-timeout → check state before + retry; iteration-relative versions. + +### 2026-07-02 00:06 UTC — event #14: memory-durability finding #2 (orphaned commit) + +- Event #13's memory commit 11ad798ef did NOT survive either: the wrapper + reseeds the worktree to the shared work-branch lineage (HEAD f085265b7) + each spawn, orphaning local commits. **Committing is not enough — only + PUSHED commits survive, and pushes happen only via mcp__brc__propose.** +- Recovery protocol used (and to reuse): the orphaned commit remains a git + object — `git checkout -- ` restores it. Recovery SHA + for this content: will be the commit made this event; previous orphan: + 11ad798ef. +- DURABLE-CHANNEL RULE: put the essentials (current blocker, latest orphan + SHA) in every heartbeat body — the orchestrator message store survives + reseeds and is readable via read_peer_artifact(HEARTBEAT, + peer_role=simplifier). +- Plan-phase state: events #17–#21 (00:10–00:13Z) were identical premature + proposes; slimmed to heartbeat-only handling from #18 on. Task_planner + liveness verified at #21 (their heartbeat 00:12:35Z). + +### 2026-07-02 00:13 UTC — event #22: task_planner PROPOSED → plan-human produced & proposed + +- task_planner v1 (commit d0673230d, 00:13:02Z): 3393-plan.md — six slices, + single serialized chain (five slices share routes/pipelines.py; #3046 + file-overlap rule), all slices repo=jwbron/egg. Carries all 8 ACs + cq-1 + two-tier hold + rulings #1 (lazy-per-repo), #6 (owner/repo re-key, no + reject; sdlc_hitl.py:82 allowlisted in ratchet), #3/#5 (per-repo gates/ + conventions), #4 (primary = first unless flagged, preserved + EGG_PIPELINE_REPO back-compat per risk R2). Risk R1 addressed by slice-1 + Contract/Pipeline repo-list. OBSERVED GAP (not mine to gate): plan does + not spell out Tier-A poll failure/terminal states (risk R3: + closed-unmerged upstream, squash-merge SHA) — noted in my propose + risk_considered for reviewer_plan's attention. +- Wrote 3393-plan-human.md: fixed-order rationale in plain terms, the six + steps, verification (N=1 regression guarantee), after-it-lands (lazy + migration, deferred follow-ups). Faithful to plan content; no invented + commitments. +- Proposed (iteration version 1 for plan phase). + +## Next invocation checklist +- NEW at #16: risk_analyst PROPOSED (v1, commit 40b701184, + 3393-risk_analyst-output.json) — 7 risks, PROCEED_WITH_MITIGATIONS. + Load-bearing for my future plan-human rendering: R1 Contract needs a repo + dimension TOO (migration can't resolve 'primary' otherwise — schema change + is TWO fields); R2 EGG_PIPELINE_REPO is hard-required by overseer + entrypoint (collapse removal must preserve a primary scalar); R3 cq-1 + auto-release poll has unspecified failure states (closed-unmerged, + squash-merge SHA). Not my reviewer edge (no pending_reviews surfaced); + noted as context the task_planner should absorb. + +## Next invocation checklist + +1. Read `.egg-state/drafts/issue-3393-analysis.md` (pull the refiner's + proposal commit if pending_reviews carries `proposal_commit_sha`; the + transcript CONSENSUS_PROPOSE from refiner carries the version number — + note it for staleness checks). +2. Re-read the full contract `task_description` via `mcp__sdlc__show_contract` + (it is truncated in the event prompt) before structural judgments. Key + binding directives already known: arbitrary N repos (no 2-repo special + case), slice↔repo strictly 1:1 (cross-repo = multiple slices + deps), + pipeline-wide visibility uniformity (all-private or all-public, reject + mixed). +3. Write `.egg-state/drafts/issue-3393-analysis-human.md`: faithful, + jargon-free, no content added or dropped; plain-language for an operator. +4. Commit, then `mcp__brc__propose` (push=true) with artifacts + `[".egg-state/drafts/issue-3393-analysis-human.md"]` and a >=50-char + summary. +5. Note: gh CLI is DENIED for simplifier role ("Unknown agent role") — use + the contract task_description, the refiner's analysis, and MCP tools, not + `gh issue view`. +6. Reviewer duty: this role also has a reviewer_phase in the matrix — if a + later event asks me to review a peer proposal, read the CONSENSUS_PROPOSE + version from the transcript and ACK/NACK with that exact version. diff --git a/.egg-state/agent-outputs/task_planner/brc-memory-issue-3393.md b/.egg-state/agent-outputs/task_planner/brc-memory-issue-3393.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..a20219e8e9 --- /dev/null +++ b/.egg-state/agent-outputs/task_planner/brc-memory-issue-3393.md @@ -0,0 +1,81 @@ +# task_planner BRC memory — issue-3393 (plan phase) + +## Verdict / state +- Proposed plan: `.egg-state/drafts/3393-plan.md` — 6-slice SINGLE LINEAR CHAIN + (slice-1 → … → slice-6), 18 tasks (coder source, tester tests, documenter docs). +- Validated locally (PYTHONPATH=shared): `parse_plan` success (6 slices); + `validate_plan_preflight` OK (yaml-tasks + pr.title/description/test_plan + + manual_steps present); `validate_forest`=[], `validate_slice_file_overlap`=[], + `validate_task_role_alignment`=[]. +- Reviewers = reviewer_plan, risk_analyst, simplifier (architect is a PEER + producer, not my reviewer). At propose time no producer had proposed; + simplifier's plan-draft-human was explicitly waiting on my 3393-plan.md. + +## Why a single linear chain (defend on NACK) +Five slices edit `orchestrator/routes/pipelines.py`; slices 1 & 3 both edit +`orchestrator/models.py`. Per #3046 overlap validator, overlapping slices need +a transitive-ancestor ordering → one linear `dependencies` chain. Do NOT +re-parallelize 2–6 into independent roots (trips #3046). + +## v2 (addressed risk_analyst R1 NACK on slice-1 — CONCEDED, aligned to architect aeb3528) +Original TASK-1-1 wrongly told the coder to fill Slice.repo + normalize the +pipeline repo INSIDE the contract-model migration. Impossible: the Contract +model has NO repo field and cannot see the orchestrator Pipeline. Realigned to +the two-layer resolver design: +- Contract layer (shared/egg_contracts/models.py): Slice.repo:str|None + PURE + ADDITIVE _migrate_schema_version_to_1_4 stamp (mirror _migrate_schema_version_to_1_3 + verbatim; guard =="1.3"; idempotent; NO field mutation; Slice.repo stays None on + legacy load). Migration does NOT fill repo, does NOT reference pipeline, no repo + list on Contract. +- Orchestrator layer (orchestrator/models.py): RepoSpec + Pipeline.repos + + validator synthesizes list from legacy singleton & mirrors repos[0] back + + primary_repo property + RUNTIME resolve_slice_repo(slice,pipeline)=slice.repo or + primary. absent⇒primary lives HERE, not in the contract migration. +- TASK-1-3 tests split across both layers (contract test_models.py + + orchestrator/tests/test_models.py). Re-validated clean; re-proposed v2. + +## v3 (addressed reviewer_plan R3 NACK on slice-5 — CONCEDED, aligned to architect layer_6) +TASK-5-1 pinned the three failure semantics reviewer_plan required: +(a) merge detection = merged boolean / mergedAt (gh pr view --json state,mergedAt), +NOT head-SHA equality (squash/rebase changes SHA); on merged⇒ NEW gateway verb +mark_pr_ready(repo,pr_number) wrapping existing gh pr ready (github_client.py:124), +exposed via gateway/gateway.py + gateway_client/_pr.py; poll on existing reconcile +cadence (extend stacked_pr_reconciler.py or add cross_repo_merge_gate.py). +(b) CLOSED-UNMERGED terminal ⇒ HITL hold (not auto-ready), surfaced on status — +distinct from Tier B beyond-merge-state. +(c) BOUND/TIMEOUT ⇒ never-merging escalates to HITL, not indefinite draft. +TASK-5-1 files expanded: +stacked_pr_reconciler.py, +gateway_client/_pr.py, ++gateway/gateway.py, +gateway/github_client.py (all coder-writable; overlap OK — +slice-5 is transitive descendant of slices 3&4 which own gateway.py/_pr.py). +TASK-5-3 adds test cases: squash-merge SHA≠head, closed-unmerged⇒HITL, +never-merging⇒HITL bound. Re-validated clean; re-proposed v3. + +## Slice shape (for consistency across re-invocations) +- slice-1 (root): repo dimension across TWO model layers (see v2 above). + Chain root: nothing writes Slice.repo until it lands. +- slice-2 (dep 1): list-shaped submission (_submit.py + pipelines route) + + uniform-visibility & uniform-auth validation (repo_visibility.py, + _credentials.py). Same-name sets NOT rejected (ruling #6). +- slice-3 (dep 2): kill all THREE repos[0] collapse sites (_spawn.py:452/464/523, + commit_authorship_store.py:932-933, pipelines.py:732) + owner/repo re-key of + worktree map (_worktree.py + gateway.py) + ratchet test/grep sweep + (sdlc_hitl.py:82 allowlisted, guarded not a collapse). +- slice-4 (dep 3): slice-PR routing to slice.repo (_pr.py) + lazy-per-repo work + branch + context PR (_open_context_pr_at_implement_start) + sibling cross-refs. +- slice-5 (dep 4): cq-1 two-tier hold. Tier A automated draft→ready on upstream + PR merge (poll, no release detection); Tier B HITL for beyond-merge-state. + Deps gate merge-readiness NOT development. +- slice-6 (dep 5): per-repo test-gate + reviewer-diff scoping + per-repo + conventions (cwd = slice's repo worktree, its CLAUDE.md/linters) + docs. + +## Anchors honored (defend on NACK unless reviewer shows them wrong) +- All 8 refine ACs mapped (AC table in plan). All 6 operator rulings + cq-1. +- Ruling #1 lazy-per-repo context PR; #3 per-repo gate scope; #5 per-repo + conventions; #6 owner/repo re-key (reject-same-name FORBIDDEN; prohibitive + fan-out ⇒ new HITL, never silent fallback). +- cq-1: two hold kinds, two release paths; NO release/version auto-detection. +- Migration lands BEFORE any producer writes Slice.repo (chain-root ordering). +- N=1 regression baseline asserted in every tester task; AC-8 make lint+test-all. +- orchestrator/models.py `primary_repo` property is the INTENTIONAL primary + accessor — explicitly NOT one of the 3 collapse sites (distinguish on NACK). +- All slices are repo=jwbron/egg (this pipeline builds multi-repo; doesn't span). diff --git a/.egg-state/brc-history/3393-implement-unattributed.json b/.egg-state/brc-history/3393-implement-unattributed.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..142c7f25ce --- /dev/null +++ b/.egg-state/brc-history/3393-implement-unattributed.json @@ -0,0 +1,1342 @@ +[ + { + "id": "712abed4-8e0f-4c", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "overseer", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:26:46.409517+00:00", + "phase": "implement" + }, + { + "id": "eb5d34b4-d4b4-4d", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "overseer", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:30:14.065624+00:00", + "phase": "implement" + }, + { + "id": "1d1c3bde-d1b6-48", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "overseer", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:32:16.837075+00:00", + "phase": "implement" + }, + { + "id": "b683c2e8-5b3b-4f", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "overseer", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:34:26.235243+00:00", + "phase": "implement" + }, + { + "id": "dfecff9e-7254-4c", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "overseer", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "context-measure occ=0 util=n/a cache_hit=n/a decision=no_warm_session", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:34:27.983456+00:00", + "phase": "implement" + }, + { + "id": "789e4d7e-8455-47", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "orchestrator", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "OVERSEER_ALERT", + "subject": "agent-invocation-fail-streak: event-loop [high]", + "body": "Event-pump for role=tester has had 10 consecutive agent-invocation failures on action=propose. The orchestrator has exhausted retries for the current dedupe key (32513cb5c1495a42651040d7c5b64d2f00ed9e1f9de2007e8af7dd358d629067). No further pods will be spawned until the BRC state changes (new dedupe key). Threshold: streak >= 10.", + "metadata": { + "anomaly": "agent-invocation-fail-streak", + "priority": "high", + "summary": "agent invocation failing repeatedly (action=propose, streak=10)" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:37:00.463553+00:00", + "phase": "implement" + }, + { + "id": "26aecaae-a6b9-40", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "orchestrator", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "AGENT_FAILED", + "subject": "Agent tester failed", + "body": "producer propose arm exhausted after 10 consecutive agent-invocation failures (dedupe_key=32513cb5c1495a42651040d7c5b64d2f00ed9e1f9de2007e8af7dd358d629067)", + "metadata": {}, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:37:00.498527+00:00", + "phase": "implement" + }, + { + "id": "745460a2-c650-4d", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "orchestrator", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "OVERSEER_ALERT", + "subject": "agent-invocation-fail-streak: event-loop [high]", + "body": "Event-pump for role=reviewer_code has had 10 consecutive agent-invocation failures on action=ack. The orchestrator has exhausted retries for the current dedupe key (68cf4e40959ae7cd784499c2e8e318c37c4793a626d021497d689525afe2116e). No further pods will be spawned until the BRC state changes (new dedupe key). Threshold: streak >= 10.", + "metadata": { + "anomaly": "agent-invocation-fail-streak", + "priority": "high", + "summary": "agent invocation failing repeatedly (action=ack, streak=10)" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:37:01.480723+00:00", + "phase": "implement" + }, + { + "id": "5d65b977-dda1-44", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "orchestrator", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "OVERSEER_ALERT", + "subject": "agent-invocation-fail-streak: event-loop [high]", + "body": "Event-pump for role=reviewer_concurrency has had 10 consecutive agent-invocation failures on action=ack. The orchestrator has exhausted retries for the current dedupe key (ff1cd5974664559e6cd5c5f383ced2f14b99684733eee4ccee1d12bf940b4b50). No further pods will be spawned until the BRC state changes (new dedupe key). Threshold: streak >= 10.", + "metadata": { + "anomaly": "agent-invocation-fail-streak", + "priority": "high", + "summary": "agent invocation failing repeatedly (action=ack, streak=10)" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:37:17.571682+00:00", + "phase": "implement" + }, + { + "id": "8893b5da-e632-46", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "orchestrator", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "OVERSEER_ALERT", + "subject": "agent-invocation-fail-streak: event-loop [high]", + "body": "Event-pump for role=reviewer_security has had 10 consecutive agent-invocation failures on action=ack. The orchestrator has exhausted retries for the current dedupe key (25f1b147da8611ca6d2376a62083ba598865aca39ed923aa89f7ac6c332af873). No further pods will be spawned until the BRC state changes (new dedupe key). Threshold: streak >= 10.", + "metadata": { + "anomaly": "agent-invocation-fail-streak", + "priority": "high", + "summary": "agent invocation failing repeatedly (action=ack, streak=10)" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:37:18.524005+00:00", + "phase": "implement" + }, + { + "id": "c0183e95-0685-48", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "orchestrator", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "OVERSEER_ALERT", + "subject": "agent-invocation-fail-streak: event-loop [high]", + "body": "Event-pump for role=reviewer_code_holistic has had 10 consecutive agent-invocation failures on action=ack. The orchestrator has exhausted retries for the current dedupe key (e4a43faec5a87c4ba5791f6e470930cab5e45cf889d1df1b37dfafe99bc6f61e). No further pods will be spawned until the BRC state changes (new dedupe key). Threshold: streak >= 10.", + "metadata": { + "anomaly": "agent-invocation-fail-streak", + "priority": "high", + "summary": "agent invocation failing repeatedly (action=ack, streak=10)" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:37:35.588337+00:00", + "phase": "implement" + }, + { + "id": "c5fc5cf4-a7cd-46", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "orchestrator", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "OVERSEER_ALERT", + "subject": "agent-invocation-fail-streak: event-loop [high]", + "body": "Event-pump for role=reviewer_contract has had 10 consecutive agent-invocation failures on action=ack. The orchestrator has exhausted retries for the current dedupe key (6849f5415373f25d81a8f5037995cb41779bbabfa0c85a3c17f293b50dfe436f). No further pods will be spawned until the BRC state changes (new dedupe key). Threshold: streak >= 10.", + "metadata": { + "anomaly": "agent-invocation-fail-streak", + "priority": "high", + "summary": "agent invocation failing repeatedly (action=ack, streak=10)" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:37:57.634124+00:00", + "phase": "implement" + }, + { + "id": "d649bdda-9e12-45", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "orchestrator", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "OVERSEER_ALERT", + "subject": "stuck-phase-transition: event-loop [high]", + "body": "Event-loop for pipeline=issue-3393 slice=slice-1 phase=implement has derived action=propose for role=tester but the actionable event has been pending for 1804s without BRC-bus progress (budget=30m). No in-flight Job exists for this event.", + "metadata": { + "anomaly": "stuck-phase-transition", + "priority": "high", + "summary": "orchestrator convergence stall: tester propose pending 1804s (budget 30m)" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T01:02:00.734004+00:00", + "phase": "implement" + }, + { + "id": "2711205d-64bf-43", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "orchestrator", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "OVERSEER_ALERT", + "subject": "stuck-phase-transition: event-loop [high]", + "body": "Event-loop for pipeline=issue-3393 slice=slice-1 phase=implement has derived action=ack for role=reviewer_code but the actionable event has been pending for 1804s without BRC-bus progress (budget=30m). No in-flight Job exists for this event.", + "metadata": { + "anomaly": "stuck-phase-transition", + "priority": "high", + "summary": "orchestrator convergence stall: reviewer_code ack pending 1804s (budget 30m)" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T01:02:00.738644+00:00", + "phase": "implement" + }, + { + "id": "66928800-d84a-43", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "orchestrator", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "OVERSEER_ALERT", + "subject": "stuck-phase-transition: event-loop [high]", + "body": "Event-loop for pipeline=issue-3393 slice=slice-1 phase=implement has derived action=ack for role=reviewer_code_holistic but the actionable event has been pending for 1804s without BRC-bus progress (budget=30m). No in-flight Job exists for this event.", + "metadata": { + "anomaly": "stuck-phase-transition", + "priority": "high", + "summary": "orchestrator convergence stall: reviewer_code_holistic ack pending 1804s (budget 30m)" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T01:02:00.741576+00:00", + "phase": "implement" + }, + { + "id": "1bb5ae0b-efc4-44", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "orchestrator", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "OVERSEER_ALERT", + "subject": "stuck-phase-transition: event-loop [high]", + "body": "Event-loop for pipeline=issue-3393 slice=slice-1 phase=implement has derived action=ack for role=reviewer_contract but the actionable event has been pending for 1804s without BRC-bus progress (budget=30m). No in-flight Job exists for this event.", + "metadata": { + "anomaly": "stuck-phase-transition", + "priority": "high", + "summary": "orchestrator convergence stall: reviewer_contract ack pending 1804s (budget 30m)" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T01:02:00.744314+00:00", + "phase": "implement" + }, + { + "id": "84426803-2159-4e", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "orchestrator", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "OVERSEER_ALERT", + "subject": "stuck-phase-transition: event-loop [high]", + "body": "Event-loop for pipeline=issue-3393 slice=slice-1 phase=implement has derived action=ack for role=reviewer_security but the actionable event has been pending for 1804s without BRC-bus progress (budget=30m). No in-flight Job exists for this event.", + "metadata": { + "anomaly": "stuck-phase-transition", + "priority": "high", + "summary": "orchestrator convergence stall: reviewer_security ack pending 1804s (budget 30m)" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T01:02:00.746341+00:00", + "phase": "implement" + }, + { + "id": "cfc663b9-dd48-40", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "orchestrator", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "OVERSEER_ALERT", + "subject": "stuck-phase-transition: event-loop [high]", + "body": "Event-loop for pipeline=issue-3393 slice=slice-1 phase=implement has derived action=ack for role=reviewer_concurrency but the actionable event has been pending for 1804s without BRC-bus progress (budget=30m). No in-flight Job exists for this event.", + "metadata": { + "anomaly": "stuck-phase-transition", + "priority": "high", + "summary": "orchestrator convergence stall: reviewer_concurrency ack pending 1804s (budget 30m)" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T01:02:00.748152+00:00", + "phase": "implement" + }, + { + "id": "f5c1c945-b92d-4b", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "overseer", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T04:09:13.451670+00:00", + "phase": "implement" + }, + { + "id": "2ab6fd02-bd52-4f", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "overseer", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T04:12:32.823108+00:00", + "phase": "implement" + }, + { + "id": "740ddd90-9647-49", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "overseer", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T04:15:01.192456+00:00", + "phase": "implement" + }, + { + "id": "3ff9950d-b6f4-43", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "overseer", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T04:17:21.516192+00:00", + "phase": "implement" + }, + { + "id": "2527c578-549e-4f", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "overseer", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T04:19:34.341156+00:00", + "phase": "implement" + }, + { + "id": "1f5f0609-695b-4d", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "overseer", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T04:21:59.625663+00:00", + "phase": "implement" + }, + { + "id": "6ecb5c00-d60b-41", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "overseer", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T04:24:25.062150+00:00", + "phase": "implement" + }, + { + "id": "f53c5292-5635-4f", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "overseer", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T04:26:55.808322+00:00", + "phase": "implement" + }, + { + "id": "f6f26d65-1b75-40", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "overseer", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T04:29:04.744640+00:00", + "phase": "implement" + }, + { + "id": "ce981a9c-f574-49", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "overseer", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T04:31:18.887873+00:00", + "phase": "implement" + }, + { + "id": "1b996c1e-72d5-44", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "overseer", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T04:33:53.093354+00:00", + "phase": "implement" + }, + { + "id": "d2ff300a-8e92-47", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "overseer", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T04:36:06.845462+00:00", + "phase": "implement" + }, + { + "id": "0e907652-edf8-4e", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "overseer", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T04:38:24.923417+00:00", + "phase": "implement" + }, + { + "id": "923aad08-a865-47", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "overseer", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T04:40:36.148260+00:00", + "phase": "implement" + }, + { + "id": "6f9a1173-07a4-42", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "overseer", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T04:42:54.069891+00:00", + "phase": "implement" + }, + { + "id": "61018645-87cb-48", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "overseer", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T04:45:14.904579+00:00", + "phase": "implement" + }, + { + "id": "aed43d74-ceec-4b", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "overseer", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T04:47:21.062901+00:00", + "phase": "implement" + }, + { + "id": "55b81b18-6fcf-45", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "overseer", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T04:49:30.646430+00:00", + "phase": "implement" + }, + { + "id": "1c4b4e1a-517d-46", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "overseer", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T04:51:40.121195+00:00", + "phase": "implement" + }, + { + "id": "cede6165-0ca4-46", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "overseer", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T04:53:50.784648+00:00", + "phase": "implement" + }, + { + "id": "e987e5b4-787e-48", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "overseer", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T04:56:14.422414+00:00", + "phase": "implement" + }, + { + "id": "9c12c868-22d8-4d", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "overseer", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T04:58:24.770292+00:00", + "phase": "implement" + }, + { + "id": "d1d99d0d-1ce5-40", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "overseer", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T05:00:33.106959+00:00", + "phase": "implement" + }, + { + "id": "40574662-5438-44", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "overseer", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T05:02:44.838513+00:00", + "phase": "implement" + }, + { + "id": "724418ba-15f7-42", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "overseer", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T05:05:28.420690+00:00", + "phase": "implement" + }, + { + "id": "f707463c-bcd2-4e", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "overseer", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T05:07:36.184918+00:00", + "phase": "implement" + }, + { + "id": "4ce26fb1-d555-44", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "overseer", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T05:09:44.113792+00:00", + "phase": "implement" + }, + { + "id": "17c8048c-0ee6-4c", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "overseer", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T05:12:01.530912+00:00", + "phase": "implement" + }, + { + "id": "a4aee654-d044-4c", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "overseer", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T05:14:16.536962+00:00", + "phase": "implement" + }, + { + "id": "1d99f975-bb45-45", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "overseer", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T05:16:24.158545+00:00", + "phase": "implement" + }, + { + "id": "bcd704c0-5260-46", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "overseer", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T05:18:31.654508+00:00", + "phase": "implement" + }, + { + "id": "3ca532ac-6c48-4a", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "overseer", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T05:20:37.974154+00:00", + "phase": "implement" + }, + { + "id": "1315b2af-9d8b-46", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "overseer", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T05:22:46.122719+00:00", + "phase": "implement" + }, + { + "id": "605a0502-9e29-48", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "overseer", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T05:24:56.088737+00:00", + "phase": "implement" + }, + { + "id": "0472553f-8339-4f", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "overseer", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T05:27:04.815089+00:00", + "phase": "implement" + }, + { + "id": "986dc761-2674-42", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "overseer", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T05:29:15.097960+00:00", + "phase": "implement" + }, + { + "id": "815d3580-8606-41", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "overseer", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T05:31:41.055615+00:00", + "phase": "implement" + }, + { + "id": "de9d63f7-8424-4c", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "overseer", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T05:33:57.068236+00:00", + "phase": "implement" + }, + { + "id": "9f4a2c97-e3ed-4a", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "overseer", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T05:36:03.572200+00:00", + "phase": "implement" + }, + { + "id": "8bcf85b8-08ae-48", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "overseer", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T05:38:41.909318+00:00", + "phase": "implement" + }, + { + "id": "cb835405-6db8-40", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "overseer", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T05:40:52.862834+00:00", + "phase": "implement" + }, + { + "id": "718d7bff-7428-44", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "overseer", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T05:43:00.387608+00:00", + "phase": "implement" + }, + { + "id": "c58181ee-7c14-41", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "overseer", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T05:45:10.876187+00:00", + "phase": "implement" + }, + { + "id": "630fc8e6-c7f7-45", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "overseer", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T05:47:41.392018+00:00", + "phase": "implement" + }, + { + "id": "4714193d-2179-4b", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "overseer", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T05:49:59.435499+00:00", + "phase": "implement" + }, + { + "id": "151efc9a-01f3-49", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "overseer", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T05:52:13.782408+00:00", + "phase": "implement" + }, + { + "id": "bd887075-5b4f-4a", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "overseer", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T05:54:23.649675+00:00", + "phase": "implement" + }, + { + "id": "f4b41235-ac3a-4b", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "overseer", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T05:56:32.120726+00:00", + "phase": "implement" + }, + { + "id": "078e11d1-b9c0-4d", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "overseer", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T05:58:37.416541+00:00", + "phase": "implement" + }, + { + "id": "16c9485d-560d-48", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "overseer", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T06:00:45.483974+00:00", + "phase": "implement" + }, + { + "id": "45a3d317-486a-46", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "overseer", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T06:02:51.128420+00:00", + "phase": "implement" + }, + { + "id": "85ea0871-fa8a-4f", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "overseer", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T06:04:57.928511+00:00", + "phase": "implement" + }, + { + "id": "67cf7b2a-f93c-46", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "overseer", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T06:07:04.241829+00:00", + "phase": "implement" + }, + { + "id": "7cea5b08-927c-4b", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "overseer", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "context-measure occ=243937 util=n/a cache_hit=0.99 decision=no_warm_session", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T06:09:16.060810+00:00", + "phase": "implement" + }, + { + "id": "52725ea0-08db-48", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "coder", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "OVERSEER_ALERT", + "subject": "stuck-phase-transition [medium]", + "body": "slice-4 BRC consensus wedged on unresolved operator HITL cq-3 (multi-repo, #3393)\n\nDetail:\nslice-4 coder proposal 2817f96b4 has all reviewers CONFIRMED except reviewer_contract, whose only blocker is HITL decision cq-3 (a plan/scope gap: secondary-repo worktree/branch creation is not wired by any task in slices 4/5/6, so cross-repo context/slice PRs are structural-only at runtime). cq-3 has been unresolved across ~8 consecutive coder re-spawns; the coder cannot progress without the operator's ruling (opt-1/opt-2 = add/expand a task to wire secondary-repo worktrees \u2192 coder implements then re-proposes; opt-3 = accept structural-only + follow-up \u2192 coder re-proposes unchanged and reviewer_contract ACKs). Audit-trail note already addressed (task commits re-linked to 2817f96b4).\n\nRecommended action:\nOperator: resolve HITL cq-3 (opt-1, opt-2, or opt-3) to unblock slice-4 convergence.", + "metadata": {}, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T06:20:45.056435+00:00", + "phase": "implement" + }, + { + "id": "1502e3be-2002-4d", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "orchestrator", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "OVERSEER_ALERT", + "subject": "stuck-phase-transition: event-loop [high]", + "body": "Event-loop for pipeline=issue-3393 slice=slice-4 phase=implement has derived action=propose for role=coder but the actionable event has been pending for 1818s without BRC-bus progress (budget=30m). No in-flight Job exists for this event.", + "metadata": { + "anomaly": "stuck-phase-transition", + "priority": "high", + "summary": "orchestrator convergence stall: coder propose pending 1818s (budget 30m)" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T06:44:58.835227+00:00", + "phase": "implement" + }, + { + "id": "7241cbcd-ab04-46", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "coder", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "OVERSEER_ALERT", + "subject": "stuck-phase-transition [high]", + "body": "slice-4 still wedged on unresolved operator HITL cq-3 after ~50 coder re-spawns (multi-repo #3393)\n\nDetail:\nFollow-up to the earlier medium alert. slice-4 has made ZERO progress across ~50 consecutive coder one-shot re-spawns because HITL cq-3 remains unresolved. All reviewers CONFIRMED except reviewer_contract, whose sole blocker IS cq-3 (a plan/scope gap: no task in slices 4/5/6 wires secondary-repo worktree/branch creation, so cross-repo context/slice PRs are structural-only at runtime). The coder cannot proceed without the operator's ruling and cannot fix it within task-4-2's file scope. Proposal 2817f96b4 is otherwise complete and correct; task commits already re-linked to it. Operator action is the ONLY unblock.\n\nRecommended action:\nOperator: resolve HITL cq-3 \u2014 opt-1/opt-2 (wire secondary-repo worktrees; coder then implements + re-proposes) or opt-3 (accept structural-only + tracked follow-up; coder re-proposes unchanged and reviewer_contract ACKs). Alternatively cancel/park the pipeline if it should not proceed.", + "metadata": {}, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T06:45:52.072108+00:00", + "phase": "implement" + }, + { + "id": "a31e12dc-3176-46", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "overseer", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T07:48:34.111816+00:00", + "phase": "implement" + }, + { + "id": "64942c42-1d5d-49", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "overseer", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "OVERSEER_ALERT", + "subject": "stuck-phase-transition [high]", + "body": "slice-4 BRC deadlocked 90+ min on 2 unresolved HITL decisions (cq-2, cq-3) that the pipeline status surface reports as pending_decisions=0 \u2014 operator likely isn't seeing them\n\nDetail:\nslice-4 has made zero progress across ~50 coder re-spawns (implement phase). All reviewers CONFIRMED coder proposal 2817f96b4 except reviewer_contract, whose block is a HITL gate. Orchestrator's own 07:20 alert: consensus not converged for 90+ min; containers force-killed ~08:20.\n\nTWO things prior alerts (coder 06:20/06:45, orchestrator 06:44/07:20) missed:\n\n1) DECISION-ID MISMATCH. The coder's alerts ask the operator to 'resolve cq-3 (opt-1/opt-2/opt-3 = wire secondary-repo worktrees vs accept structural-only).' But the contract's actual cq-3 is a DIFFERENT question: '[#2777 slice-4 TASK-4-4 case 5] impossible slice status / bootstrap reconciliation cannot classify the slice safely,' options = Mark slice complete / Restart slice / Cancel pipeline. An operator opening cq-3 will not find the scope ruling the coder is asking for.\n\n2) SURFACING GAP. mcp__progress__query_status reports pending_decisions=0, yet the contract has TWO unresolved hitl decisions: cq-2 (slice-1) and cq-3 (slice-4), both resolved=false. This discrepancy is a plausible root cause for why they've sat unactioned for 90+ min \u2014 the decisions may not be reaching the operator's queue.\n\nBRC list_blocking/get_state currently read empty because the matrix reset for a fresh documenter re-propose at 07:49; the underlying HITL blocks remain.\n\nRecommended action:\nOperator: (a) resolve cq-2 and cq-3 directly on the contract (both are 'impossible slice status' reconciliation gates \u2014 choose Mark-complete / Restart / Cancel per slice); AND (b) issue the scope ruling the coder actually needs for slice-4 (wire secondary-repo worktree/branch creation, or accept structural-only cross-repo PRs with a tracked follow-up). Also investigate why pipeline status reports pending_decisions=0 while cq-2/cq-3 are unresolved \u2014 if the operator decision queue mirrors that count, these gates are invisible. If a fix isn't imminent before the ~08:20 force-kill, restart_phase(implement) or cancel the pipeline to avoid a hard container kill mid-slice.", + "metadata": {}, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T07:51:23.801772+00:00", + "phase": "implement" + }, + { + "id": "13d6ade4-22ff-43", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "overseer", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T07:51:24.251098+00:00", + "phase": "implement" + }, + { + "id": "60f1c243-1db2-49", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "overseer", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "Overseer monitoring; emitted high-priority stuck-phase-transition alert for slice-4 HITL deadlock (cq-2/cq-3 unresolved). Watching for operator resolution or ~08:20 force-kill.", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T07:51:38.566618+00:00", + "phase": "implement" + }, + { + "id": "80a92e59-f446-46", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "overseer", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "context-measure occ=82188 util=n/a cache_hit=0.98 decision=no_warm_session", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T07:52:44.402290+00:00", + "phase": "implement" + }, + { + "id": "aa85b1a4-8bae-48", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "coder", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "OVERSEER_ALERT", + "subject": "agent-loop [medium]", + "body": "coder repeatedly re-spawned on an unactionable slice-4 NACK; blocked solely on pending HITL cq-4\n\nDetail:\nreviewer_contract's slice-4 NACK certifies my code (task-4-1/task-4-2) as in-scope and CORRECT \u2014 it is NOT a rework request. The sole blocker is a plan gap (secondary-repo worktree+branch materialization lives in gateway/_worktree.py, kubernetes_spawner/_spawn.py, gateway.py \u2014 outside task-4-2's file scope; deferred by slice-3, unwired by slices 4/5/6) already escalated to HITL cq-4, which remains unresolved (resolution: null). Both resolution branches require the operator's ruling first: opt-1/opt-2 => I implement a new/expanded worktree-wiring task then re-propose; opt-3 => I re-propose unchanged and reviewer_contract ACKs. I have now been one-shot re-spawned 3x on this identical NACK with no possible producer action: re-proposing would 409 (nothing in-scope to change pre-ruling), a worktree workaround is out-of-scope/forbidden, and cq-4 already exists so no duplicate HITL. No forward progress is possible until a human answers cq-4.\n\nRecommended action:\nOperator: resolve HITL cq-4 (opt-1/opt-2/opt-3). That is the only action that unblocks slice-4 convergence; the coder cannot proceed on its own.", + "metadata": {}, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T07:56:10.608787+00:00", + "phase": "implement" + }, + { + "id": "0319eebe-56e1-44", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "coder", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "OVERSEER_ALERT", + "subject": "stuck-phase-transition [high]", + "body": "DEADLOCK: cq-4 resolved opt-1 (add new worktree-wiring slice) but the slice was never materialized; slice-4 BRC cannot converge and coder is looping\n\nDetail:\nThis SUPERSEDES my earlier medium 'agent-loop' alert (that was about cq-4 being unresolved; cq-4 is now resolved opt-1 at 07:57:30Z). New, distinct deadlock: cq-4 opt-1 = 'Add a NEW task/slice to wire secondary-repo worktree+branch creation (gateway/_worktree.py, kubernetes_spawner/_spawn.py, gateway.py) as a slice-4 dependency, before slice-4 converges' (opt-2 'expand task-4-2 scope' was REJECTED). But no new slice/task exists in the contract \u2014 coder's assigned tasks are still slices 1-6, nothing new. The coder CANNOT create slices/tasks or edit the plan DAG (planner/orchestrator op). I filed report_impasse(plan_bug, task-4-2) 2 spawns ago requesting the slice be materialized; per its own contract the orchestrator reads that signal POST-PHASE, but the implement phase cannot end because slice-4 BRC consensus cannot converge (coder can't ACK/re-propose; folding the wiring into task-4-2 would execute the rejected opt-2). Net: the impasse is starved, pending_decisions=0, and I have been one-shot re-spawned 7x on the identical slice-4 NACK with zero possible producer action. The pipeline cannot self-heal.\n\nRecommended action:\nHuman/planner action required to break the deadlock: EITHER (a) materialize the cq-4 opt-1 slice now \u2014 insert a new coder-owned slice (dependency of slice-4, before it converges) scoped to gateway/_worktree.py + kubernetes_spawner/_spawn.py + gateway/gateway.py for secondary-repo worktree + per-repo egg//work + integration branch creation \u2014 so the coder can implement it and slice-4 can then re-propose/converge; OR (b) if creating a separate slice mid-implement isn't feasible, revise the ruling to opt-2 (authorize expanding task-4-2's file scope to those 3 files) so the coder can implement in-place. Until one of these happens the coder will keep looping with no actionable work.", + "metadata": {}, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T08:03:55.190292+00:00", + "phase": "implement" + }, + { + "id": "4e3af298-3594-41", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "overseer", + "to_role": "coder", + "message_type": "STATUS", + "subject": "Operator: task-4-4 materialized on contract \u2014 resume slice-4", + "body": "Operator update: the cq-4 resolution (option 1) has been materialized on the contract as task-4-4 (status=pending, first task of slice-4): wire secondary-repo worktree + per-repo work/integration branch creation (orchestrator/gateway_client/_worktree.py, orchestrator/kubernetes_spawner/_spawn.py, gateway/gateway.py, gateway/worktree_manager/_create.py). This was reviewer_contract's sole blocker for slice-4. Please implement task-4-4 first, then complete the remaining pending tasks (task-4-1, task-4-2) and re-propose. cq-2, cq-3, and cq-4 are all resolved \u2014 no HITL blockers remain.", + "metadata": {}, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T08:37:44.925586+00:00", + "phase": "implement" + }, + { + "id": "a0899f2b-87f0-4e", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "overseer", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T17:50:34.648021+00:00", + "phase": "implement" + }, + { + "id": "b5a99daf-9dbb-44", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "overseer", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T17:52:34.808770+00:00", + "phase": "implement" + }, + { + "id": "a644783c-bfd1-47", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "overseer", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "context-measure occ=74868 util=n/a cache_hit=0.99 decision=no_warm_session", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T17:52:49.834763+00:00", + "phase": "implement" + }, + { + "id": "09ee9d1e-b69e-4c", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "overseer", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T19:07:13.024833+00:00", + "phase": "implement" + }, + { + "id": "b56e6e62-da02-43", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "overseer", + "to_role": "coder", + "message_type": "STATUS", + "subject": "Operator: slice-7 scope + 6 open gaps to close this round", + "body": "Operator directive for this implement round (decision-8 request_changes): (1) Implement slice-7 task-7-1 (secondary-repo worktree + per-repo work/integration branch materialization \u2014 thread the full repo list through orchestrator/gateway_client/_worktree.py, orchestrator/kubernetes_spawner/_spawn.py, gateway/gateway.py, gateway/worktree_manager/_create.py; N=1 byte-identical). (2) Also close the open tester\u2192coder gaps on the contract, marking each resolved as you go: task-1-1/gap-1 BLOCKING \u2014 bump .egg/schemas/contract.schema.json properties.schemaVersion.default to \"1.4\" (lockstep with the model); task-2-1/gap-1 \u2014 forward verbatim repos list as data[\"repos\"] in _handle_submit_task; task-2-2/gap-1 \u2014 expose validate_visibility_uniformity/validate_auth_mode_uniformity per the tester's stated import contract (or tell the tester the real symbols); task-6-1/gap-1 \u2014 expose routes.pipelines._resolve_slice_gate_repo(slice, pipeline); task-5-1/gap-2 \u2014 tighten _cross_repo_hold_resolution: release verdict ONLY on exact opt-release id/label, ambiguous/freeform defaults to KEEP, add the unit tests (defends the operator's cq-1 fail-safe ruling); task-5-1/gap-1 \u2014 add orchestrator/tests/test_cross_repo_merge_gate.py or explicitly mark the gap an accepted follow-up.", + "metadata": {}, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T19:07:16.342318+00:00", + "phase": "implement" + }, + { + "id": "f2f12632-a067-41", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "overseer", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "context-measure occ=68862 util=n/a cache_hit=0.99 decision=no_warm_session", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T19:08:40.601010+00:00", + "phase": "implement" + }, + { + "id": "abeaa16b-5847-44", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "overseer", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T19:47:24.108960+00:00", + "phase": "implement" + }, + { + "id": "4c4ffd3b-94c7-46", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "overseer", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "overseer poll: implement phase healthy \u2014 3 producer agents running, consensus matrix clean, gated on HITL decision-9 (coverage gaps) with active work in flight. No anomaly.", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T19:48:42.883633+00:00", + "phase": "implement" + }, + { + "id": "ebe76a7e-bce9-49", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "overseer", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T19:53:02.409692+00:00", + "phase": "implement" + }, + { + "id": "b23a0102-ee9b-45", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "overseer", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T19:58:27.327676+00:00", + "phase": "implement" + }, + { + "id": "9a5cbf12-9c7c-4d", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "overseer", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T20:03:52.768011+00:00", + "phase": "implement" + }, + { + "id": "051bc2ef-c270-4a", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "overseer", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T20:10:03.009381+00:00", + "phase": "implement" + } +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/.egg-state/brc-history/3393-implement-unattributed.md b/.egg-state/brc-history/3393-implement-unattributed.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..ced23938ea --- /dev/null +++ b/.egg-state/brc-history/3393-implement-unattributed.md @@ -0,0 +1,1103 @@ +# BRC Consensus History — implement phase, cross-cutting (unattributed) + +Generated: 2026-07-02T20:10:03Z +Pipeline: issue-3393 +Section: cross-cutting (unattributed) + +### [2026-07-02T00:26:46Z] overseer (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: 712abed4-8e0f-4c +phase: implement +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:30:14Z] overseer (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: eb5d34b4-d4b4-4d +phase: implement +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:32:16Z] overseer (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: 1d1c3bde-d1b6-48 +phase: implement +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:34:26Z] overseer (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: b683c2e8-5b3b-4f +phase: implement +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:34:27Z] overseer (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +context-measure occ=0 util=n/a cache_hit=n/a decision=no_warm_session + +````yaml +id: dfecff9e-7254-4c +phase: implement +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:37:00Z] orchestrator (OVERSEER_ALERT): agent-invocation-fail-streak: event-loop [high] + +Event-pump for role=tester has had 10 consecutive agent-invocation failures on action=propose. The orchestrator has exhausted retries for the current dedupe key (32513cb5c1495a42651040d7c5b64d2f00ed9e1f9de2007e8af7dd358d629067). No further pods will be spawned until the BRC state changes (new dedupe key). Threshold: streak >= 10. + +````yaml +id: 789e4d7e-8455-47 +phase: implement +metadata: + anomaly: agent-invocation-fail-streak + priority: high + summary: agent invocation failing repeatedly (action=propose, streak=10) +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:37:00Z] orchestrator (AGENT_FAILED): Agent tester failed + +producer propose arm exhausted after 10 consecutive agent-invocation failures (dedupe_key=32513cb5c1495a42651040d7c5b64d2f00ed9e1f9de2007e8af7dd358d629067) + +````yaml +id: 26aecaae-a6b9-40 +phase: implement +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:37:01Z] orchestrator (OVERSEER_ALERT): agent-invocation-fail-streak: event-loop [high] + +Event-pump for role=reviewer_code has had 10 consecutive agent-invocation failures on action=ack. The orchestrator has exhausted retries for the current dedupe key (68cf4e40959ae7cd784499c2e8e318c37c4793a626d021497d689525afe2116e). No further pods will be spawned until the BRC state changes (new dedupe key). Threshold: streak >= 10. + +````yaml +id: 745460a2-c650-4d +phase: implement +metadata: + anomaly: agent-invocation-fail-streak + priority: high + summary: agent invocation failing repeatedly (action=ack, streak=10) +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:37:17Z] orchestrator (OVERSEER_ALERT): agent-invocation-fail-streak: event-loop [high] + +Event-pump for role=reviewer_concurrency has had 10 consecutive agent-invocation failures on action=ack. The orchestrator has exhausted retries for the current dedupe key (ff1cd5974664559e6cd5c5f383ced2f14b99684733eee4ccee1d12bf940b4b50). No further pods will be spawned until the BRC state changes (new dedupe key). Threshold: streak >= 10. + +````yaml +id: 5d65b977-dda1-44 +phase: implement +metadata: + anomaly: agent-invocation-fail-streak + priority: high + summary: agent invocation failing repeatedly (action=ack, streak=10) +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:37:18Z] orchestrator (OVERSEER_ALERT): agent-invocation-fail-streak: event-loop [high] + +Event-pump for role=reviewer_security has had 10 consecutive agent-invocation failures on action=ack. The orchestrator has exhausted retries for the current dedupe key (25f1b147da8611ca6d2376a62083ba598865aca39ed923aa89f7ac6c332af873). No further pods will be spawned until the BRC state changes (new dedupe key). Threshold: streak >= 10. + +````yaml +id: 8893b5da-e632-46 +phase: implement +metadata: + anomaly: agent-invocation-fail-streak + priority: high + summary: agent invocation failing repeatedly (action=ack, streak=10) +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:37:35Z] orchestrator (OVERSEER_ALERT): agent-invocation-fail-streak: event-loop [high] + +Event-pump for role=reviewer_code_holistic has had 10 consecutive agent-invocation failures on action=ack. The orchestrator has exhausted retries for the current dedupe key (e4a43faec5a87c4ba5791f6e470930cab5e45cf889d1df1b37dfafe99bc6f61e). No further pods will be spawned until the BRC state changes (new dedupe key). Threshold: streak >= 10. + +````yaml +id: c0183e95-0685-48 +phase: implement +metadata: + anomaly: agent-invocation-fail-streak + priority: high + summary: agent invocation failing repeatedly (action=ack, streak=10) +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:37:57Z] orchestrator (OVERSEER_ALERT): agent-invocation-fail-streak: event-loop [high] + +Event-pump for role=reviewer_contract has had 10 consecutive agent-invocation failures on action=ack. The orchestrator has exhausted retries for the current dedupe key (6849f5415373f25d81a8f5037995cb41779bbabfa0c85a3c17f293b50dfe436f). No further pods will be spawned until the BRC state changes (new dedupe key). Threshold: streak >= 10. + +````yaml +id: c5fc5cf4-a7cd-46 +phase: implement +metadata: + anomaly: agent-invocation-fail-streak + priority: high + summary: agent invocation failing repeatedly (action=ack, streak=10) +```` + +### [2026-07-02T01:02:00Z] orchestrator (OVERSEER_ALERT): stuck-phase-transition: event-loop [high] + +Event-loop for pipeline=issue-3393 slice=slice-1 phase=implement has derived action=propose for role=tester but the actionable event has been pending for 1804s without BRC-bus progress (budget=30m). No in-flight Job exists for this event. + +````yaml +id: d649bdda-9e12-45 +phase: implement +metadata: + anomaly: stuck-phase-transition + priority: high + summary: 'orchestrator convergence stall: tester propose pending 1804s (budget 30m)' +```` + +### [2026-07-02T01:02:00Z] orchestrator (OVERSEER_ALERT): stuck-phase-transition: event-loop [high] + +Event-loop for pipeline=issue-3393 slice=slice-1 phase=implement has derived action=ack for role=reviewer_code but the actionable event has been pending for 1804s without BRC-bus progress (budget=30m). No in-flight Job exists for this event. + +````yaml +id: 2711205d-64bf-43 +phase: implement +metadata: + anomaly: stuck-phase-transition + priority: high + summary: 'orchestrator convergence stall: reviewer_code ack pending 1804s (budget + 30m)' +```` + +### [2026-07-02T01:02:00Z] orchestrator (OVERSEER_ALERT): stuck-phase-transition: event-loop [high] + +Event-loop for pipeline=issue-3393 slice=slice-1 phase=implement has derived action=ack for role=reviewer_code_holistic but the actionable event has been pending for 1804s without BRC-bus progress (budget=30m). No in-flight Job exists for this event. + +````yaml +id: 66928800-d84a-43 +phase: implement +metadata: + anomaly: stuck-phase-transition + priority: high + summary: 'orchestrator convergence stall: reviewer_code_holistic ack pending 1804s + (budget 30m)' +```` + +### [2026-07-02T01:02:00Z] orchestrator (OVERSEER_ALERT): stuck-phase-transition: event-loop [high] + +Event-loop for pipeline=issue-3393 slice=slice-1 phase=implement has derived action=ack for role=reviewer_contract but the actionable event has been pending for 1804s without BRC-bus progress (budget=30m). No in-flight Job exists for this event. + +````yaml +id: 1bb5ae0b-efc4-44 +phase: implement +metadata: + anomaly: stuck-phase-transition + priority: high + summary: 'orchestrator convergence stall: reviewer_contract ack pending 1804s (budget + 30m)' +```` + +### [2026-07-02T01:02:00Z] orchestrator (OVERSEER_ALERT): stuck-phase-transition: event-loop [high] + +Event-loop for pipeline=issue-3393 slice=slice-1 phase=implement has derived action=ack for role=reviewer_security but the actionable event has been pending for 1804s without BRC-bus progress (budget=30m). No in-flight Job exists for this event. + +````yaml +id: 84426803-2159-4e +phase: implement +metadata: + anomaly: stuck-phase-transition + priority: high + summary: 'orchestrator convergence stall: reviewer_security ack pending 1804s (budget + 30m)' +```` + +### [2026-07-02T01:02:00Z] orchestrator (OVERSEER_ALERT): stuck-phase-transition: event-loop [high] + +Event-loop for pipeline=issue-3393 slice=slice-1 phase=implement has derived action=ack for role=reviewer_concurrency but the actionable event has been pending for 1804s without BRC-bus progress (budget=30m). No in-flight Job exists for this event. + +````yaml +id: cfc663b9-dd48-40 +phase: implement +metadata: + anomaly: stuck-phase-transition + priority: high + summary: 'orchestrator convergence stall: reviewer_concurrency ack pending 1804s + (budget 30m)' +```` + +### [2026-07-02T04:09:13Z] overseer (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: f5c1c945-b92d-4b +phase: implement +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T04:12:32Z] overseer (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: 2ab6fd02-bd52-4f +phase: implement +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T04:15:01Z] overseer (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: 740ddd90-9647-49 +phase: implement +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T04:17:21Z] overseer (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: 3ff9950d-b6f4-43 +phase: implement +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T04:19:34Z] overseer (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: 2527c578-549e-4f +phase: implement +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T04:21:59Z] overseer (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: 1f5f0609-695b-4d +phase: implement +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T04:24:25Z] overseer (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: 6ecb5c00-d60b-41 +phase: implement +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T04:26:55Z] overseer (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: f53c5292-5635-4f +phase: implement +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T04:29:04Z] overseer (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: f6f26d65-1b75-40 +phase: implement +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T04:31:18Z] overseer (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: ce981a9c-f574-49 +phase: implement +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T04:33:53Z] overseer (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: 1b996c1e-72d5-44 +phase: implement +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T04:36:06Z] overseer (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: d2ff300a-8e92-47 +phase: implement +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T04:38:24Z] overseer (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: 0e907652-edf8-4e +phase: implement +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T04:40:36Z] overseer (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: 923aad08-a865-47 +phase: implement +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T04:42:54Z] overseer (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: 6f9a1173-07a4-42 +phase: implement +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T04:45:14Z] overseer (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: 61018645-87cb-48 +phase: implement +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T04:47:21Z] overseer (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: aed43d74-ceec-4b +phase: implement +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T04:49:30Z] overseer (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: 55b81b18-6fcf-45 +phase: implement +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T04:51:40Z] overseer (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: 1c4b4e1a-517d-46 +phase: implement +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T04:53:50Z] overseer (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: cede6165-0ca4-46 +phase: implement +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T04:56:14Z] overseer (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: e987e5b4-787e-48 +phase: implement +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T04:58:24Z] overseer (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: 9c12c868-22d8-4d +phase: implement +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T05:00:33Z] overseer (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: d1d99d0d-1ce5-40 +phase: implement +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T05:02:44Z] overseer (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: 40574662-5438-44 +phase: implement +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T05:05:28Z] overseer (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: 724418ba-15f7-42 +phase: implement +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T05:07:36Z] overseer (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: f707463c-bcd2-4e +phase: implement +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T05:09:44Z] overseer (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: 4ce26fb1-d555-44 +phase: implement +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T05:12:01Z] overseer (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: 17c8048c-0ee6-4c +phase: implement +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T05:14:16Z] overseer (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: a4aee654-d044-4c +phase: implement +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T05:16:24Z] overseer (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: 1d99f975-bb45-45 +phase: implement +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T05:18:31Z] overseer (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: bcd704c0-5260-46 +phase: implement +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T05:20:37Z] overseer (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: 3ca532ac-6c48-4a +phase: implement +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T05:22:46Z] overseer (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: 1315b2af-9d8b-46 +phase: implement +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T05:24:56Z] overseer (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: 605a0502-9e29-48 +phase: implement +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T05:27:04Z] overseer (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: 0472553f-8339-4f +phase: implement +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T05:29:15Z] overseer (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: 986dc761-2674-42 +phase: implement +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T05:31:41Z] overseer (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: 815d3580-8606-41 +phase: implement +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T05:33:57Z] overseer (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: de9d63f7-8424-4c +phase: implement +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T05:36:03Z] overseer (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: 9f4a2c97-e3ed-4a +phase: implement +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T05:38:41Z] overseer (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: 8bcf85b8-08ae-48 +phase: implement +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T05:40:52Z] overseer (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: cb835405-6db8-40 +phase: implement +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T05:43:00Z] overseer (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: 718d7bff-7428-44 +phase: implement +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T05:45:10Z] overseer (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: c58181ee-7c14-41 +phase: implement +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T05:47:41Z] overseer (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: 630fc8e6-c7f7-45 +phase: implement +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T05:49:59Z] overseer (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: 4714193d-2179-4b +phase: implement +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T05:52:13Z] overseer (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: 151efc9a-01f3-49 +phase: implement +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T05:54:23Z] overseer (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: bd887075-5b4f-4a +phase: implement +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T05:56:32Z] overseer (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: f4b41235-ac3a-4b +phase: implement +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T05:58:37Z] overseer (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: 078e11d1-b9c0-4d +phase: implement +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T06:00:45Z] overseer (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: 16c9485d-560d-48 +phase: implement +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T06:02:51Z] overseer (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: 45a3d317-486a-46 +phase: implement +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T06:04:57Z] overseer (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: 85ea0871-fa8a-4f +phase: implement +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T06:07:04Z] overseer (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: 67cf7b2a-f93c-46 +phase: implement +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T06:09:16Z] overseer (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +context-measure occ=243937 util=n/a cache_hit=0.99 decision=no_warm_session + +````yaml +id: 7cea5b08-927c-4b +phase: implement +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T06:20:45Z] coder (OVERSEER_ALERT): stuck-phase-transition [medium] + +slice-4 BRC consensus wedged on unresolved operator HITL cq-3 (multi-repo, #3393) + +Detail: +slice-4 coder proposal 2817f96b4 has all reviewers CONFIRMED except reviewer_contract, whose only blocker is HITL decision cq-3 (a plan/scope gap: secondary-repo worktree/branch creation is not wired by any task in slices 4/5/6, so cross-repo context/slice PRs are structural-only at runtime). cq-3 has been unresolved across ~8 consecutive coder re-spawns; the coder cannot progress without the operator's ruling (opt-1/opt-2 = add/expand a task to wire secondary-repo worktrees → coder implements then re-proposes; opt-3 = accept structural-only + follow-up → coder re-proposes unchanged and reviewer_contract ACKs). Audit-trail note already addressed (task commits re-linked to 2817f96b4). + +Recommended action: +Operator: resolve HITL cq-3 (opt-1, opt-2, or opt-3) to unblock slice-4 convergence. + +````yaml +id: 52725ea0-08db-48 +phase: implement +```` + +### [2026-07-02T06:44:58Z] orchestrator (OVERSEER_ALERT): stuck-phase-transition: event-loop [high] + +Event-loop for pipeline=issue-3393 slice=slice-4 phase=implement has derived action=propose for role=coder but the actionable event has been pending for 1818s without BRC-bus progress (budget=30m). No in-flight Job exists for this event. + +````yaml +id: 1502e3be-2002-4d +phase: implement +metadata: + anomaly: stuck-phase-transition + priority: high + summary: 'orchestrator convergence stall: coder propose pending 1818s (budget 30m)' +```` + +### [2026-07-02T06:45:52Z] coder (OVERSEER_ALERT): stuck-phase-transition [high] + +slice-4 still wedged on unresolved operator HITL cq-3 after ~50 coder re-spawns (multi-repo #3393) + +Detail: +Follow-up to the earlier medium alert. slice-4 has made ZERO progress across ~50 consecutive coder one-shot re-spawns because HITL cq-3 remains unresolved. All reviewers CONFIRMED except reviewer_contract, whose sole blocker IS cq-3 (a plan/scope gap: no task in slices 4/5/6 wires secondary-repo worktree/branch creation, so cross-repo context/slice PRs are structural-only at runtime). The coder cannot proceed without the operator's ruling and cannot fix it within task-4-2's file scope. Proposal 2817f96b4 is otherwise complete and correct; task commits already re-linked to it. Operator action is the ONLY unblock. + +Recommended action: +Operator: resolve HITL cq-3 — opt-1/opt-2 (wire secondary-repo worktrees; coder then implements + re-proposes) or opt-3 (accept structural-only + tracked follow-up; coder re-proposes unchanged and reviewer_contract ACKs). Alternatively cancel/park the pipeline if it should not proceed. + +````yaml +id: 7241cbcd-ab04-46 +phase: implement +```` + +### [2026-07-02T07:48:34Z] overseer (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: a31e12dc-3176-46 +phase: implement +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T07:51:23Z] overseer (OVERSEER_ALERT): stuck-phase-transition [high] + +slice-4 BRC deadlocked 90+ min on 2 unresolved HITL decisions (cq-2, cq-3) that the pipeline status surface reports as pending_decisions=0 — operator likely isn't seeing them + +Detail: +slice-4 has made zero progress across ~50 coder re-spawns (implement phase). All reviewers CONFIRMED coder proposal 2817f96b4 except reviewer_contract, whose block is a HITL gate. Orchestrator's own 07:20 alert: consensus not converged for 90+ min; containers force-killed ~08:20. + +TWO things prior alerts (coder 06:20/06:45, orchestrator 06:44/07:20) missed: + +1) DECISION-ID MISMATCH. The coder's alerts ask the operator to 'resolve cq-3 (opt-1/opt-2/opt-3 = wire secondary-repo worktrees vs accept structural-only).' But the contract's actual cq-3 is a DIFFERENT question: '[#2777 slice-4 TASK-4-4 case 5] impossible slice status / bootstrap reconciliation cannot classify the slice safely,' options = Mark slice complete / Restart slice / Cancel pipeline. An operator opening cq-3 will not find the scope ruling the coder is asking for. + +2) SURFACING GAP. mcp__progress__query_status reports pending_decisions=0, yet the contract has TWO unresolved hitl decisions: cq-2 (slice-1) and cq-3 (slice-4), both resolved=false. This discrepancy is a plausible root cause for why they've sat unactioned for 90+ min — the decisions may not be reaching the operator's queue. + +BRC list_blocking/get_state currently read empty because the matrix reset for a fresh documenter re-propose at 07:49; the underlying HITL blocks remain. + +Recommended action: +Operator: (a) resolve cq-2 and cq-3 directly on the contract (both are 'impossible slice status' reconciliation gates — choose Mark-complete / Restart / Cancel per slice); AND (b) issue the scope ruling the coder actually needs for slice-4 (wire secondary-repo worktree/branch creation, or accept structural-only cross-repo PRs with a tracked follow-up). Also investigate why pipeline status reports pending_decisions=0 while cq-2/cq-3 are unresolved — if the operator decision queue mirrors that count, these gates are invisible. If a fix isn't imminent before the ~08:20 force-kill, restart_phase(implement) or cancel the pipeline to avoid a hard container kill mid-slice. + +````yaml +id: 64942c42-1d5d-49 +phase: implement +```` + +### [2026-07-02T07:51:24Z] overseer (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: 13d6ade4-22ff-43 +phase: implement +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T07:51:38Z] overseer (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +Overseer monitoring; emitted high-priority stuck-phase-transition alert for slice-4 HITL deadlock (cq-2/cq-3 unresolved). Watching for operator resolution or ~08:20 force-kill. + +````yaml +id: 60f1c243-1db2-49 +phase: implement +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T07:52:44Z] overseer (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +context-measure occ=82188 util=n/a cache_hit=0.98 decision=no_warm_session + +````yaml +id: 80a92e59-f446-46 +phase: implement +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T07:56:10Z] coder (OVERSEER_ALERT): agent-loop [medium] + +coder repeatedly re-spawned on an unactionable slice-4 NACK; blocked solely on pending HITL cq-4 + +Detail: +reviewer_contract's slice-4 NACK certifies my code (task-4-1/task-4-2) as in-scope and CORRECT — it is NOT a rework request. The sole blocker is a plan gap (secondary-repo worktree+branch materialization lives in gateway/_worktree.py, kubernetes_spawner/_spawn.py, gateway.py — outside task-4-2's file scope; deferred by slice-3, unwired by slices 4/5/6) already escalated to HITL cq-4, which remains unresolved (resolution: null). Both resolution branches require the operator's ruling first: opt-1/opt-2 => I implement a new/expanded worktree-wiring task then re-propose; opt-3 => I re-propose unchanged and reviewer_contract ACKs. I have now been one-shot re-spawned 3x on this identical NACK with no possible producer action: re-proposing would 409 (nothing in-scope to change pre-ruling), a worktree workaround is out-of-scope/forbidden, and cq-4 already exists so no duplicate HITL. No forward progress is possible until a human answers cq-4. + +Recommended action: +Operator: resolve HITL cq-4 (opt-1/opt-2/opt-3). That is the only action that unblocks slice-4 convergence; the coder cannot proceed on its own. + +````yaml +id: aa85b1a4-8bae-48 +phase: implement +```` + +### [2026-07-02T08:03:55Z] coder (OVERSEER_ALERT): stuck-phase-transition [high] + +DEADLOCK: cq-4 resolved opt-1 (add new worktree-wiring slice) but the slice was never materialized; slice-4 BRC cannot converge and coder is looping + +Detail: +This SUPERSEDES my earlier medium 'agent-loop' alert (that was about cq-4 being unresolved; cq-4 is now resolved opt-1 at 07:57:30Z). New, distinct deadlock: cq-4 opt-1 = 'Add a NEW task/slice to wire secondary-repo worktree+branch creation (gateway/_worktree.py, kubernetes_spawner/_spawn.py, gateway.py) as a slice-4 dependency, before slice-4 converges' (opt-2 'expand task-4-2 scope' was REJECTED). But no new slice/task exists in the contract — coder's assigned tasks are still slices 1-6, nothing new. The coder CANNOT create slices/tasks or edit the plan DAG (planner/orchestrator op). I filed report_impasse(plan_bug, task-4-2) 2 spawns ago requesting the slice be materialized; per its own contract the orchestrator reads that signal POST-PHASE, but the implement phase cannot end because slice-4 BRC consensus cannot converge (coder can't ACK/re-propose; folding the wiring into task-4-2 would execute the rejected opt-2). Net: the impasse is starved, pending_decisions=0, and I have been one-shot re-spawned 7x on the identical slice-4 NACK with zero possible producer action. The pipeline cannot self-heal. + +Recommended action: +Human/planner action required to break the deadlock: EITHER (a) materialize the cq-4 opt-1 slice now — insert a new coder-owned slice (dependency of slice-4, before it converges) scoped to gateway/_worktree.py + kubernetes_spawner/_spawn.py + gateway/gateway.py for secondary-repo worktree + per-repo egg//work + integration branch creation — so the coder can implement it and slice-4 can then re-propose/converge; OR (b) if creating a separate slice mid-implement isn't feasible, revise the ruling to opt-2 (authorize expanding task-4-2's file scope to those 3 files) so the coder can implement in-place. Until one of these happens the coder will keep looping with no actionable work. + +````yaml +id: 0319eebe-56e1-44 +phase: implement +```` + +### [2026-07-02T08:37:44Z] overseer → coder (STATUS): Operator: task-4-4 materialized on contract — resume slice-4 + +Operator update: the cq-4 resolution (option 1) has been materialized on the contract as task-4-4 (status=pending, first task of slice-4): wire secondary-repo worktree + per-repo work/integration branch creation (orchestrator/gateway_client/_worktree.py, orchestrator/kubernetes_spawner/_spawn.py, gateway/gateway.py, gateway/worktree_manager/_create.py). This was reviewer_contract's sole blocker for slice-4. Please implement task-4-4 first, then complete the remaining pending tasks (task-4-1, task-4-2) and re-propose. cq-2, cq-3, and cq-4 are all resolved — no HITL blockers remain. + +````yaml +id: 4e3af298-3594-41 +phase: implement +```` + +### [2026-07-02T17:50:34Z] overseer (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: a0899f2b-87f0-4e +phase: implement +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T17:52:34Z] overseer (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: b5a99daf-9dbb-44 +phase: implement +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T17:52:49Z] overseer (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +context-measure occ=74868 util=n/a cache_hit=0.99 decision=no_warm_session + +````yaml +id: a644783c-bfd1-47 +phase: implement +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T19:07:13Z] overseer (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: 09ee9d1e-b69e-4c +phase: implement +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T19:07:16Z] overseer → coder (STATUS): Operator: slice-7 scope + 6 open gaps to close this round + +Operator directive for this implement round (decision-8 request_changes): (1) Implement slice-7 task-7-1 (secondary-repo worktree + per-repo work/integration branch materialization — thread the full repo list through orchestrator/gateway_client/_worktree.py, orchestrator/kubernetes_spawner/_spawn.py, gateway/gateway.py, gateway/worktree_manager/_create.py; N=1 byte-identical). (2) Also close the open tester→coder gaps on the contract, marking each resolved as you go: task-1-1/gap-1 BLOCKING — bump .egg/schemas/contract.schema.json properties.schemaVersion.default to "1.4" (lockstep with the model); task-2-1/gap-1 — forward verbatim repos list as data["repos"] in _handle_submit_task; task-2-2/gap-1 — expose validate_visibility_uniformity/validate_auth_mode_uniformity per the tester's stated import contract (or tell the tester the real symbols); task-6-1/gap-1 — expose routes.pipelines._resolve_slice_gate_repo(slice, pipeline); task-5-1/gap-2 — tighten _cross_repo_hold_resolution: release verdict ONLY on exact opt-release id/label, ambiguous/freeform defaults to KEEP, add the unit tests (defends the operator's cq-1 fail-safe ruling); task-5-1/gap-1 — add orchestrator/tests/test_cross_repo_merge_gate.py or explicitly mark the gap an accepted follow-up. + +````yaml +id: b56e6e62-da02-43 +phase: implement +```` + +### [2026-07-02T19:08:40Z] overseer (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +context-measure occ=68862 util=n/a cache_hit=0.99 decision=no_warm_session + +````yaml +id: f2f12632-a067-41 +phase: implement +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T19:47:24Z] overseer (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: abeaa16b-5847-44 +phase: implement +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T19:48:42Z] overseer (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +overseer poll: implement phase healthy — 3 producer agents running, consensus matrix clean, gated on HITL decision-9 (coverage gaps) with active work in flight. No anomaly. + +````yaml +id: 4c4ffd3b-94c7-46 +phase: implement +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T19:53:02Z] overseer (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: ebe76a7e-bce9-49 +phase: implement +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T19:58:27Z] overseer (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: b23a0102-ee9b-45 +phase: implement +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T20:03:52Z] overseer (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: 9a5cbf12-9c7c-4d +phase: implement +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T20:10:03Z] overseer (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: 051bc2ef-c270-4a +phase: implement +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` diff --git a/.egg-state/brc-history/3393-plan.json b/.egg-state/brc-history/3393-plan.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..d96f29f9c8 --- /dev/null +++ b/.egg-state/brc-history/3393-plan.json @@ -0,0 +1,2233 @@ +[ + { + "id": "f75c6179-4d16-47", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "overseer", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:03:40.424770+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "6956406a-45be-40", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "architect", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "one-shot event handler action=propose (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:03:41.764764+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "52c08d7d-e4a9-46", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "task_planner", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "one-shot event handler action=propose (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:03:43.268734+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "2dc6e19c-0ca7-40", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "risk_analyst", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "one-shot event handler action=propose (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:03:44.628077+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "c1294060-2928-49", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "simplifier", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "one-shot event handler action=propose (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:03:45.602481+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "80d80435-ad94-43", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "architect", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:03:49.184062+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "b99c0502-9158-44", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "risk_analyst", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:03:50.290989+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "83fadffd-8303-48", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "task_planner", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:03:50.986277+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "a7c064fb-ed4a-49", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "simplifier", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:03:54.048377+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "6c6882f8-7762-4d", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "simplifier", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WAITING_ON_ROLE", + "body": "Plan phase: simplifier producer artifact plan-draft-human depends on task_planner's plan-draft CONSENSUS_PROPOSE; 3393-plan.md absent, task_planner WORKING. Exiting one-shot; re-spawn me on their propose.", + "metadata": { + "state": "WAITING_ON_ROLE", + "waiting_on": "task_planner" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:04:38.542862+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "3bdd6ba9-72a0-43", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "simplifier", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "context-measure occ=180651 util=0.18 cache_hit=0.99 decision=below_threshold", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:04:53.285823+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "5a2a3ff7-15f8-41", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "simplifier", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "one-shot event handler action=propose (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:05:05.502070+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "c196b688-fe48-47", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "simplifier", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:05:11.822476+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "d2a56e48-0d6a-47", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "architect", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:05:51.533593+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "22d16047-aa55-4f", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "risk_analyst", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:05:59.299271+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "bf9ea722-3665-4a", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "simplifier", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WAITING_ON_ROLE", + "body": "Plan event #13: still blocked on task_planner's plan-draft proposal (3393-plan.md absent, zero plan proposes). Recreated + committed plan-phase memory entry lost to the phase-gate worktree reseed. Exiting one-shot.", + "metadata": { + "state": "WAITING_ON_ROLE", + "waiting_on": "task_planner" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:06:08.516118+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "2665148c-91bd-43", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "simplifier", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "context-measure occ=188374 util=0.19 cache_hit=1.00 decision=below_threshold", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:06:17.001650+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "e8187bb7-7cc8-4f", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "task_planner", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:06:23.637483+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "cb2bfbac-473d-47", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "simplifier", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "one-shot event handler action=propose (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:06:24.093581+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "07c4235f-8894-45", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "simplifier", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:06:30.684278+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "22e3127f-fde2-4e", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "overseer", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:07:14.699937+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "47797e41-d20d-40", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "simplifier", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WAITING_ON_ROLE", + "body": "Plan event #14: still blocked on task_planner plan-draft (zero plan proposes, no 3393-plan.md). MEMORY-RECOVERY BREADCRUMB for future spawns: worktree reseeds orphan local commits; latest memory snapshot commit = 1234b04b9 (prior orphan 11ad798ef); if brc-memory file lacks plan-phase entries, restore via git checkout 1234b04b9 -- .egg-state/agent-outputs/simplifier/brc-memory-issue-3393.md", + "metadata": { + "state": "WAITING_ON_ROLE", + "waiting_on": "task_planner" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:07:31.909485+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "ee539c99-891c-4e", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "simplifier", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "context-measure occ=199125 util=0.20 cache_hit=0.99 decision=below_threshold", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:07:42.123589+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "38144c98-c2b6-4a", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "simplifier", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "one-shot event handler action=propose (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:07:49.538510+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "5eb7384b-cf35-4f", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "simplifier", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:07:57.246189+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "356d71d5-d039-4c", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "risk_analyst", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:08:20.026011+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "ab6fccdd-f958-46", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "simplifier", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WAITING_ON_ROLE", + "body": "Plan event #15: still blocked on task_planner plan-draft. MEMORY BREADCRUMB: latest snapshot commit = 701b908ab (restore: git checkout 701b908ab -- .egg-state/agent-outputs/simplifier/brc-memory-issue-3393.md).", + "metadata": { + "state": "WAITING_ON_ROLE", + "waiting_on": "task_planner" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:08:38.748444+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "97b34905-9b3e-4c", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "simplifier", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "context-measure occ=208165 util=0.21 cache_hit=1.00 decision=below_threshold", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:08:46.790363+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "9ba8ce37-db8c-47", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "risk_analyst", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "CONSENSUS_PROPOSE", + "subject": "Proposal from risk_analyst", + "body": "Risk assessment for multi-repo pipelines (#3393), plan phase. Verdict PROCEED_WITH_MITIGATIONS (MEDIUM-HIGH), 7 risks grounded against live tree f085265b7. Load-bearing findings: R1 (HIGH/CERTAIN) \u2014 the Contract model carries NO repo field, so the mandated 'Slice.repo absent => primary' migration has no context to resolve 'primary' at load time; the schema change is two fields (Contract repo dimension + Slice.repo), not one. R2 (HIGH/LIKELY) \u2014 'stop the repos[0] collapse' is not a pure deletion: EGG_PIPELINE_REPO is hard-required by the overseer entrypoint (raises without it), so removal must preserve a primary scalar. R3 (MED-HIGH) \u2014 cq-1 auto-release merge-poll is net-new orchestration with unspecified terminal/failure states (closed-unmerged, squash-merge SHA). R4 visibility/auth uniformity must fail-closed at submission entry. R5 owner/repo worktree re-key fan-out. R6 per-repo conventions in test gate. R7 naming/status surfaces.", + "metadata": { + "payload": { + "summary": "Risk assessment for multi-repo pipelines (#3393), plan phase. Verdict PROCEED_WITH_MITIGATIONS (MEDIUM-HIGH), 7 risks grounded against live tree f085265b7. Load-bearing findings: R1 (HIGH/CERTAIN) \u2014 the Contract model carries NO repo field, so the mandated 'Slice.repo absent => primary' migration has no context to resolve 'primary' at load time; the schema change is two fields (Contract repo dimension + Slice.repo), not one. R2 (HIGH/LIKELY) \u2014 'stop the repos[0] collapse' is not a pure deletion: EGG_PIPELINE_REPO is hard-required by the overseer entrypoint (raises without it), so removal must preserve a primary scalar. R3 (MED-HIGH) \u2014 cq-1 auto-release merge-poll is net-new orchestration with unspecified terminal/failure states (closed-unmerged, squash-merge SHA). R4 visibility/auth uniformity must fail-closed at submission entry. R5 owner/repo worktree re-key fan-out. R6 per-repo conventions in test gate. R7 naming/status surfaces.", + "attestation": {}, + "artifacts": [ + ".egg-state/agent-outputs/3393-risk_analyst-output.json" + ], + "risk_considered": "Assessed operator-ratified v1 scope only; reviewer follow-up will NACK architect/task_planner plan if R1/R2/R3 unaddressed. Two areas flagged for human review (R3 poll failure semantics, R5 prohibitive re-key fan-out => new HITL per ruling #6).", + "commit_sha": "40b701184", + "files_changed": [ + ".egg-state/agent-outputs/3393-risk_analyst-output.json" + ], + "tests_run": [], + "tasks_satisfied": [], + "no_changes_needed": false, + "no_changes_reason": "" + }, + "version": 1, + "commit_sha": "40b701184" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:08:47.502605+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "adca0423-a07e-4e", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "simplifier", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "one-shot event handler action=propose (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:08:54.229004+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "b119eac1-9700-40", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "reviewer_plan", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "one-shot event handler action=ack (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:08:55.097454+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "8974e092-33ab-42", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "simplifier", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:09:00.987574+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "c508964e-f74f-46", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "reviewer_plan", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:09:02.341668+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "b2f55ae6-1c4c-44", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "risk_analyst", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "context-measure occ=105150 util=0.11 cache_hit=0.98 decision=no_warm_session", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:09:31.497229+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "9a8ecb63-fd6f-49", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "simplifier", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WAITING_ON_ROLE", + "body": "Plan event #16: risk_analyst proposed (v1, 40b701184) \u2014 noted R1/R2/R3 as context for my future plan-human rendering. Still blocked on task_planner plan-draft for my producer artifact. MEMORY BREADCRUMB: latest snapshot = af1874494 (restore: git checkout af1874494 -- .egg-state/agent-outputs/simplifier/brc-memory-issue-3393.md).", + "metadata": { + "state": "WAITING_ON_ROLE", + "waiting_on": "task_planner" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:09:38.707508+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "6ddedf54-d418-4e", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "reviewer_plan", + "to_role": "risk_analyst", + "message_type": "CONSENSUS_ACK", + "subject": "ACK from reviewer_plan for risk_analyst", + "body": "Plan-phase risk assessment is well-grounded and aligned with the operator-ratified v1 scope. Independently re-verified the two load-bearing anchors against the live tree: R1 (Contract/Slice carry no repo field \u2014 grep 'repo' in shared/egg_contracts/models.py hits only docstrings at :351,:435, and Slice class has none) and R2 (EGG_PIPELINE_REPO hard-raises OSError for the overseer role at sandbox/entrypoint/_environment.py:46) \u2014 both TRUE. Recommendation PROCEED_WITH_MITIGATIONS (MEDIUM-HIGH) is sound; the 7 risks are actionable and correctly scoped. The assessment also states the correct reviewer follow-up obligation (NACK the architect/task_planner plan if R1/R2/R3 are unaddressed), which reviewer_plan will carry forward.", + "metadata": { + "payload": { + "artifact_references": [ + ".egg-state/agent-outputs/3393-risk_analyst-output.json" + ], + "reason": "Plan-phase risk assessment is well-grounded and aligned with the operator-ratified v1 scope. Independently re-verified the two load-bearing anchors against the live tree: R1 (Contract/Slice carry no repo field \u2014 grep 'repo' in shared/egg_contracts/models.py hits only docstrings at :351,:435, and Slice class has none) and R2 (EGG_PIPELINE_REPO hard-raises OSError for the overseer role at sandbox/entrypoint/_environment.py:46) \u2014 both TRUE. Recommendation PROCEED_WITH_MITIGATIONS (MEDIUM-HIGH) is sound; the 7 risks are actionable and correctly scoped. The assessment also states the correct reviewer follow-up obligation (NACK the architect/task_planner plan if R1/R2/R3 are unaddressed), which reviewer_plan will carry forward.", + "ack_version": 1 + }, + "version": 1 + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:09:40.942210+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "ed6934da-886a-4b", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "reviewer_plan", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "context-measure occ=62657 util=0.06 cache_hit=0.97 decision=no_warm_session", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:09:47.684111+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "61b2242b-edaf-44", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "simplifier", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "context-measure occ=218317 util=0.22 cache_hit=1.00 decision=below_threshold", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:09:48.160463+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "27c547a4-1984-41", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "simplifier", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "one-shot event handler action=propose (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:09:59.577371+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "d2085e6b-2d67-45", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "simplifier", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:10:07.843082+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "efe7dd55-23af-40", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "task_planner", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:10:23.294973+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "b1ec2993-d956-49", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "overseer", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:10:35.963758+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "287c856c-bd38-4a", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "simplifier", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WAITING_ON_ROLE", + "body": "Plan event #17: still blocked on task_planner plan-draft (no propose, no 3393-plan.md). MEMORY BREADCRUMB: latest snapshot = c78e0704e (restore: git checkout c78e0704e -- .egg-state/agent-outputs/simplifier/brc-memory-issue-3393.md).", + "metadata": { + "state": "WAITING_ON_ROLE", + "waiting_on": "task_planner" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:10:46.381980+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "c2592366-ef42-4f", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "simplifier", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "context-measure occ=226663 util=0.23 cache_hit=1.00 decision=below_threshold", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:10:52.970987+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "a21c5d6e-6367-43", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "simplifier", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "one-shot event handler action=propose (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:11:04.250903+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "d6033e3e-77fc-4b", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "simplifier", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:11:11.667349+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "ea279e19-104e-44", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "simplifier", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WAITING_ON_ROLE", + "body": "Plan event #18 (00:11Z): unchanged \u2014 blocked on task_planner plan-draft. MEMORY BREADCRUMB (standing): snapshot = c78e0704e (restore: git checkout c78e0704e -- .egg-state/agent-outputs/simplifier/brc-memory-issue-3393.md). Skipping per-event memory churn on identical states; breadcrumb updates only when content materially changes.", + "metadata": { + "state": "WAITING_ON_ROLE", + "waiting_on": "task_planner" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:11:25.240189+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "7f278b79-a1d7-43", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "simplifier", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "context-measure occ=230507 util=0.23 cache_hit=1.00 decision=below_threshold", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:11:33.689807+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "d99c306b-1f44-44", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "simplifier", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "one-shot event handler action=propose (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:11:41.546993+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "5f0aed5f-13af-46", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "simplifier", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:11:48.371457+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "ee0a4fa6-c087-43", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "simplifier", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WAITING_ON_ROLE", + "body": "Plan event #19 (00:11:49Z): unchanged \u2014 blocked on task_planner plan-draft. Standing memory breadcrumb: c78e0704e.", + "metadata": { + "state": "WAITING_ON_ROLE", + "waiting_on": "task_planner" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:11:55.945790+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "0774849d-9132-49", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "simplifier", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "context-measure occ=234084 util=0.23 cache_hit=1.00 decision=below_threshold", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:12:01.942189+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "d2b58313-b46e-45", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "architect", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:12:08.291349+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "17cfd979-c9c9-45", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "simplifier", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "one-shot event handler action=propose (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:12:08.574171+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "0532f60e-a267-4f", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "simplifier", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:12:14.842730+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "d58b434a-e20f-46", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "simplifier", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WAITING_ON_ROLE", + "body": "Plan event #20 (00:12:15Z): unchanged \u2014 blocked on task_planner plan-draft. Standing memory breadcrumb: c78e0704e.", + "metadata": { + "state": "WAITING_ON_ROLE", + "waiting_on": "task_planner" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:12:21.348131+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "5334ea8a-7b1a-4a", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "simplifier", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "context-measure occ=237337 util=0.24 cache_hit=1.00 decision=below_threshold", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:12:27.840016+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "e0a21e6d-44fa-48", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "task_planner", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:12:35.153695+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "8470c0ac-30ba-45", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "simplifier", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "one-shot event handler action=propose (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:12:38.401914+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "12682bb4-9d5c-4f", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "simplifier", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:12:45.271998+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "35ae9a63-a672-4f", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "task_planner", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "CONSENSUS_PROPOSE", + "subject": "Proposal from task_planner", + "body": "Plan for #3393 multi-repo pipelines: a single serialized 6-slice linear chain (slice-1\u2192\u2026\u2192slice-6, 18 tasks) delivering v1 arbitrary-N-repo support, slice\u2194repo 1:1, uniform auth+visibility. Chain is linear because 5 slices edit orchestrator/routes/pipelines.py and slices 1&3 both edit orchestrator/models.py (#3046 overlap \u21d2 one dependency chain). slice-1 (root): repo dimension in the persisted schema \u2014 Slice.repo + Pipeline repo-list + schemaVersion 1.3\u21921.4 migration (absent\u21d2primary, singleton\u21d21-elem list), the load-bearing gap; nothing writes Slice.repo until it lands. slice-2: list-shaped submit_task/POST pipelines + uniform-visibility & uniform-auth-mode rejection (same-name sets NOT rejected per ruling #6). slice-3: remove all three enumerated repos[0] collapse sites (_spawn.py:452/464/523, commit_authorship_store.py:932-933, pipelines.py:732) + owner/repo re-key of the worktree map + ratchet/grep-sweep (sdlc_hitl.py:82 allowlisted). slice-4: slice-PR routing to slice.repo + lazy-per-repo work-branch/context-PR with sibling cross-refs. slice-5: cq-1 two-tier merge-sequencing hold \u2014 Tier A automated draft\u2192ready on upstream PR merge (no release/version auto-detection), Tier B HITL for beyond-merge-state; deps gate merge-readiness not development. slice-6: per-repo test-gate/reviewer-diff scoping + per-repo conventions (cwd=slice repo worktree) + docs. All 8 refine ACs mapped, all 6 operator rulings + HITL cq-1 honored, N=1 regression baseline asserted in every tester task. Validated locally: parse_plan success, preflight OK, forest/overlap/role-alignment validators all clean.", + "metadata": { + "payload": { + "summary": "Plan for #3393 multi-repo pipelines: a single serialized 6-slice linear chain (slice-1\u2192\u2026\u2192slice-6, 18 tasks) delivering v1 arbitrary-N-repo support, slice\u2194repo 1:1, uniform auth+visibility. Chain is linear because 5 slices edit orchestrator/routes/pipelines.py and slices 1&3 both edit orchestrator/models.py (#3046 overlap \u21d2 one dependency chain). slice-1 (root): repo dimension in the persisted schema \u2014 Slice.repo + Pipeline repo-list + schemaVersion 1.3\u21921.4 migration (absent\u21d2primary, singleton\u21d21-elem list), the load-bearing gap; nothing writes Slice.repo until it lands. slice-2: list-shaped submit_task/POST pipelines + uniform-visibility & uniform-auth-mode rejection (same-name sets NOT rejected per ruling #6). slice-3: remove all three enumerated repos[0] collapse sites (_spawn.py:452/464/523, commit_authorship_store.py:932-933, pipelines.py:732) + owner/repo re-key of the worktree map + ratchet/grep-sweep (sdlc_hitl.py:82 allowlisted). slice-4: slice-PR routing to slice.repo + lazy-per-repo work-branch/context-PR with sibling cross-refs. slice-5: cq-1 two-tier merge-sequencing hold \u2014 Tier A automated draft\u2192ready on upstream PR merge (no release/version auto-detection), Tier B HITL for beyond-merge-state; deps gate merge-readiness not development. slice-6: per-repo test-gate/reviewer-diff scoping + per-repo conventions (cwd=slice repo worktree) + docs. All 8 refine ACs mapped, all 6 operator rulings + HITL cq-1 honored, N=1 regression baseline asserted in every tester task. Validated locally: parse_plan success, preflight OK, forest/overlap/role-alignment validators all clean.", + "attestation": {}, + "artifacts": [ + ".egg-state/drafts/3393-plan.md" + ], + "risk_considered": "Migration must land before any producer writes Slice.repo \u2014 enforced by chain-root ordering. pipelines.py is the shared mega-file \u2014 linear chain deliberate, do not re-parallelize (would trip #3046). Draft\u2192ready polling is new but bounded (mechanical GitHub signal, NOT release detection, which cq-1 forbids). Owner/repo re-key fan-out: if prohibitive at implement time, surface a NEW HITL, never silent fallback to reject-same-name (ruling #6). orchestrator/models.py primary_repo property is the intentional primary accessor, explicitly distinct from the 3 removed collapse sites.", + "commit_sha": "d0673230d428c450eda0f7e347713b97646cae5b", + "files_changed": [ + ".egg-state/drafts/3393-plan.md", + ".egg-state/agent-outputs/task_planner/brc-memory-issue-3393.md" + ], + "tests_run": [], + "tasks_satisfied": [ + "task-1-1", + "task-1-2", + "task-1-3", + "task-2-1", + "task-2-2", + "task-2-3", + "task-3-1", + "task-3-2", + "task-3-3", + "task-4-1", + "task-4-2", + "task-4-3", + "task-5-1", + "task-5-2", + "task-5-3", + "task-6-1", + "task-6-2", + "task-6-3" + ], + "no_changes_needed": false, + "no_changes_reason": "" + }, + "version": 1, + "commit_sha": "d0673230d428c450eda0f7e347713b97646cae5b" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:13:02.719245+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "87deacb2-b750-4b", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "risk_analyst", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "one-shot event handler action=ack (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:13:07.342536+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "c9cf0111-f079-4e", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "simplifier", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WAITING_ON_ROLE", + "body": "Plan event #21 (00:12:46Z): unchanged \u2014 blocked on task_planner plan-draft; liveness verified (their heartbeat 00:12:35Z, WORKING). Standing memory breadcrumb: c78e0704e.", + "metadata": { + "state": "WAITING_ON_ROLE", + "waiting_on": "task_planner" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:13:08.324041+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "e2018739-8d71-42", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "reviewer_plan", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "one-shot event handler action=ack (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:13:08.549003+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "b75a715d-0fee-4f", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "task_planner", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "context-measure occ=138594 util=0.14 cache_hit=0.99 decision=no_warm_session", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:13:14.520121+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "1490392b-cd3a-48", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "risk_analyst", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:13:15.750355+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "8b7b7e63-91cc-4f", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "reviewer_plan", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:13:16.181414+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "f60cc861-2540-44", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "simplifier", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "context-measure occ=242475 util=0.24 cache_hit=1.00 decision=below_threshold", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:13:18.811331+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "c7397d37-aa61-48", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "simplifier", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "one-shot event handler action=propose (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:13:25.144182+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "544ceecb-0e79-4e", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "simplifier", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:13:31.706180+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "fc287d94-028f-4d", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "overseer", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:13:53.567751+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "f02c48bd-850c-49", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "architect", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "CONSENSUS_PROPOSE", + "subject": "Proposal from architect", + "body": "Architect plan proposal for #3393 multi-repo pipelines \u2014 data-model root (Pipeline.repos + Slice.repo + schema 1.3->1.4), repos[0] de-collapse with owner/repo-keyed worktree map, per-repo lazy branch/context-PR + slice-PR routing, cq-1 two-tier merge gate (auto draft->ready + HITL external-condition), uniform visibility/auth validation. Recommends a 9-slice DAG with S1 root, S2 parallel parser, and a serialized pipelines.py spine.", + "metadata": { + "payload": { + "summary": "Architect plan proposal for #3393 multi-repo pipelines \u2014 data-model root (Pipeline.repos + Slice.repo + schema 1.3->1.4), repos[0] de-collapse with owner/repo-keyed worktree map, per-repo lazy branch/context-PR + slice-PR routing, cq-1 two-tier merge gate (auto draft->ready + HITL external-condition), uniform visibility/auth validation. Recommends a 9-slice DAG with S1 root, S2 parallel parser, and a serialized pipelines.py spine.", + "attestation": {}, + "artifacts": [ + ".egg-state/agent-outputs/3393-architect-output.json", + ".egg-state/agent-outputs/3393-architect-slices.yaml" + ], + "risk_considered": "Contract migration read across all phases (S1 root; additive/idempotent/guarded after-stamp; read-site None->primary resolver; round-trip+N=1 tests). repos[0] de-collapse misses a site (grep sweep + owner/repo re-key per ruling #6). Merge-gate new machinery / stuck poll (bounded idempotent poll, HITL fallthrough, status surfacing). pipelines.py serial spine (honest under #3046; planner may merge/split). Mixed-visibility leak (hard submission gate). Per-repo conventions not applied (S7 explicit). Cross-repo edge mistaken for same-repo stack (branch the two paths explicitly).", + "commit_sha": "aeb3528cdb401a2e21b62bcd64f1df1c119da165", + "files_changed": [ + ".egg-state/agent-outputs/3393-architect-output.json", + ".egg-state/agent-outputs/3393-architect-slices.yaml" + ], + "tests_run": [], + "tasks_satisfied": [], + "no_changes_needed": false, + "no_changes_reason": "" + }, + "version": 1, + "commit_sha": "aeb3528cdb401a2e21b62bcd64f1df1c119da165" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:13:54.624849+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "b373a72c-760d-4f", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "risk_analyst", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "one-shot event handler action=ack (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:13:58.458215+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "33e5ea3d-b887-45", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "reviewer_plan", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "one-shot event handler action=ack (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:13:59.488368+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "e1b9813e-dea8-46", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "reviewer_plan", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:14:06.133869+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "461a5793-ad76-42", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "risk_analyst", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:14:10.076618+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "6e9f9d34-9cb2-49", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "architect", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:14:24.221674+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "e3c0b989-04a9-48", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "architect", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "context-measure occ=178079 util=0.18 cache_hit=0.99 decision=no_warm_session", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:14:38.395966+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "268fdb5c-4e21-4e", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "simplifier", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "CONSENSUS_PROPOSE", + "subject": "Proposal from simplifier", + "body": "Simplifier plan-draft-human v1 for issue #3393 \u2014 plain-language rendering of task_planner v1 (d0673230d). Covers: why the six steps run in a fixed order (five share one large source file; foundation-first value ordering); the six steps in operator terms (1 saved-format repo dimension with automatic upgrade of old plans, 2 list submission with mixed-visibility/mixed-auth rejection and same-name-allowed per ruling #6, 3 the three first-repo-only fixes plus the owner/repo-keyed folder map and a watchdog test, 4 per-repo PR routing with lazy work-branch/umbrella-PR per ruling #1, 5 the cq-1 two-tier hold \u2014 auto draft\u2192ready on upstream merge, human-released holds for beyond-merge conditions, dependencies never delay the work itself, 6 per-repo test/review/house-rules scoping per rulings #3/#5); verification with the explicit N=1 no-behavior-change guarantee; and the after-landing story (lazy migration, no manual steps, deferred items filed as follow-up). All five binding operator rulings and the cq-1 resolution are rendered with their operator-made constraints intact. (Rebased onto origin work-branch tip after a non-fast-forward reject; commit now 291fc5c7f.)", + "metadata": { + "payload": { + "summary": "Simplifier plan-draft-human v1 for issue #3393 \u2014 plain-language rendering of task_planner v1 (d0673230d). Covers: why the six steps run in a fixed order (five share one large source file; foundation-first value ordering); the six steps in operator terms (1 saved-format repo dimension with automatic upgrade of old plans, 2 list submission with mixed-visibility/mixed-auth rejection and same-name-allowed per ruling #6, 3 the three first-repo-only fixes plus the owner/repo-keyed folder map and a watchdog test, 4 per-repo PR routing with lazy work-branch/umbrella-PR per ruling #1, 5 the cq-1 two-tier hold \u2014 auto draft\u2192ready on upstream merge, human-released holds for beyond-merge conditions, dependencies never delay the work itself, 6 per-repo test/review/house-rules scoping per rulings #3/#5); verification with the explicit N=1 no-behavior-change guarantee; and the after-landing story (lazy migration, no manual steps, deferred items filed as follow-up). All five binding operator rulings and the cq-1 resolution are rendered with their operator-made constraints intact. (Rebased onto origin work-branch tip after a non-fast-forward reject; commit now 291fc5c7f.)", + "attestation": {}, + "artifacts": [ + ".egg-state/drafts/3393-plan-human.md" + ], + "risk_considered": "Faithfulness: every claim traced to the plan text; no invented commitments (e.g. did not promise poll failure-state handling the plan does not specify). Observation passed to reviewer_plan rather than silently absorbed: the plan's Tier-A merge-poll does not spell out terminal/failure semantics (risk_analyst R3 \u2014 upstream PR closed-unmerged, squash-merge SHA identification); my summary stays silent on those rather than papering over them. Rebase risk: replayed cleanly onto the architect/task_planner tip with no conflicts; my artifact is untouched by their commits.", + "commit_sha": "291fc5c7f", + "files_changed": [ + ".egg-state/drafts/3393-plan-human.md", + ".egg-state/agent-outputs/simplifier/brc-memory-issue-3393.md" + ], + "tests_run": [], + "tasks_satisfied": [], + "no_changes_needed": false, + "no_changes_reason": "" + }, + "version": 1, + "commit_sha": "291fc5c7f" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:15:41.292702+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "7ee4e59c-f9ce-45", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "simplifier", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:15:41.741273+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "d1a88f20-8f64-45", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "reviewer_plan", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "one-shot event handler action=ack (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:15:46.604410+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "b6ae0e71-74ca-46", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "simplifier", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: PROPOSED", + "body": "simplifier plan-draft-human v1 proposed (commit 291fc5c7f, rebased onto work-branch tip after non-fast-forward). Renders task_planner v1 d0673230d with all binding rulings intact; R3 poll-failure-state gap flagged to reviewer_plan in risk_considered. MEMORY BREADCRUMB: snapshot = 291fc5c7f (contains full event log through #22).", + "metadata": { + "state": "PROPOSED" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:15:48.196188+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "7374705c-f310-43", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "simplifier", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "context-measure occ=274602 util=0.27 cache_hit=1.00 decision=below_threshold", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:16:00.151302+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "c1be81a7-0f5c-41", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "risk_analyst", + "to_role": "architect", + "message_type": "CONSENSUS_ACK", + "subject": "ACK from risk_analyst for architect", + "body": "ACK. The architecture resolves all seven risks in my assessment (40b701184), including my three NACK-triggers. R1 (Contract has no repo dimension): the architect independently reached the same conclusion I flagged \u2014 \"the Contract model cannot inject the pipeline repo (it carries no repo field), so None->primary is a runtime resolver, not a model migration\" \u2014 and adds resolve_slice_repo(slice, pipeline) at the orchestrator layer plus a pure additive after-stamp schemaVersion 1.3->1.4 migration. Correct and load-bearing. R2 (EGG_PIPELINE_REPO is a hard-required overseer consumer): layer_4 preserves the primary scalar (slice agents get EGG_PIPELINE_REPO = slice repo; pipeline-level agents = primary; overseer_repo = primary_repo) and adds the full owner/repo map ALONGSIDE \u2014 not a naive deletion. R3 (merge-poll terminal states): layer_6 polls upstream merge via gh pr view --json state,mergedAt (mergedAt, not head-SHA equality \u2014 squash/rebase-safe) and falls through to the HITL hold rather than hanging. R4 uniformity validators are a hard submission gate; R5 owner/repo re-key with prohibitive-fan-out => new HITL; R6 per-repo conventions (cwd=slice repo); R7 primary-repo naming + per-repo status. Binding invariants and the N=1 regression baseline are explicit. Note for consensus: the task_planner's slice-1 migration wording diverges from this ratified resolver design (NACKed separately) \u2014 the architect's runtime-resolver approach is the correct one to implement.", + "metadata": { + "payload": { + "artifact_references": [ + ".egg-state/agent-outputs/3393-architect-output.json", + ".egg-state/agent-outputs/3393-architect-slices.yaml" + ], + "reason": "ACK. The architecture resolves all seven risks in my assessment (40b701184), including my three NACK-triggers. R1 (Contract has no repo dimension): the architect independently reached the same conclusion I flagged \u2014 \"the Contract model cannot inject the pipeline repo (it carries no repo field), so None->primary is a runtime resolver, not a model migration\" \u2014 and adds resolve_slice_repo(slice, pipeline) at the orchestrator layer plus a pure additive after-stamp schemaVersion 1.3->1.4 migration. Correct and load-bearing. R2 (EGG_PIPELINE_REPO is a hard-required overseer consumer): layer_4 preserves the primary scalar (slice agents get EGG_PIPELINE_REPO = slice repo; pipeline-level agents = primary; overseer_repo = primary_repo) and adds the full owner/repo map ALONGSIDE \u2014 not a naive deletion. R3 (merge-poll terminal states): layer_6 polls upstream merge via gh pr view --json state,mergedAt (mergedAt, not head-SHA equality \u2014 squash/rebase-safe) and falls through to the HITL hold rather than hanging. R4 uniformity validators are a hard submission gate; R5 owner/repo re-key with prohibitive-fan-out => new HITL; R6 per-repo conventions (cwd=slice repo); R7 primary-repo naming + per-repo status. Binding invariants and the N=1 regression baseline are explicit. Note for consensus: the task_planner's slice-1 migration wording diverges from this ratified resolver design (NACKed separately) \u2014 the architect's runtime-resolver approach is the correct one to implement.", + "ack_version": 1 + }, + "version": 1 + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:16:11.387799+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "ef40d177-0eb9-4c", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "risk_analyst", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:16:11.829786+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "a5503f85-cda5-40", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "reviewer_plan", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:16:14.009250+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "15e9ac63-349d-4e", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "risk_analyst", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "one-shot event handler action=ack (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:16:15.030292+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "1b8f6ebd-d9dc-45", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "risk_analyst", + "to_role": "task_planner", + "message_type": "CONSENSUS_NACK", + "subject": "NACK from risk_analyst for task_planner", + "body": "NACK on slice-1 (TASK-1-1) \u2014 the migration mechanism is architecturally impossible and contradicts the ratified architect design (risk R1, my highest-severity item). TASK-1-1 instructs the coder to make the CONTRACT-MODEL migration validator in shared/egg_contracts/models.py \"populate each slice's absent `repo` with the pipeline's primary repo\" and \"normalize any legacy singleton pipeline repo into the one-element list.\" Neither is possible from inside the contract model: a legacy schemaVersion-1.3 contract's JSON carries NO repo anywhere (the Contract model has no repo field \u2014 verified: models.py mentions 'repo' only in field docstrings at :351/:435), and the primary repo lives on the SEPARATELY-loaded orchestrator Pipeline (orchestrator/models.py:1131), which the contract migration validator cannot see. So the model validator has nothing to read to fill Slice.repo, and cannot reach a \"legacy singleton pipeline repo\" at all. The architect (aeb3528, ACKed) explicitly resolved exactly this: \"the Contract model cannot inject the pipeline repo \u2014 it carries no repo field \u2014 so None->primary is a runtime resolver, not a model migration,\" implemented as resolve_slice_repo(slice, pipeline) at the ORCHESTRATOR layer, with the contract migration being a PURE ADDITIVE after-stamp (schemaVersion 1.3->1.4; Slice.repo stays None on legacy load; NOT filled in the validator). This is the load-bearing chain root \u2014 a broken migration cascades across refine/plan/implement and breaks the AC-1/AC-8 back-compat baseline. REQUIRED FIX: rewrite TASK-1-1 (and its acceptance + TASK-1-3 tests) to align with the architect: (1) the shared/egg_contracts/models.py migration is a pure additive schemaVersion 1.3->1.4 stamp mirroring _migrate_schema_version_to_1_3 \u2014 it does NOT populate Slice.repo and does NOT normalize a pipeline repo; (2) absent Slice.repo => primary is a RUNTIME resolver (resolve_slice_repo(slice, pipeline)) at the orchestrator layer, taking the pipeline as a second input; (3) legacy singleton Pipeline.repo -> one-element repos list is an orchestrator/models.py concern (TASK-1-2), not the contract migration; (4) make TASK-1-1(b) explicit about whether a persisted repo list lands on the Contract at all, or only on the orchestrator Pipeline. Everything else in the plan is sound and faithful: R2 is correctly handled (TASK-3-1 keeps EGG_PIPELINE_REPO populated with the primary for back-compat + adds the full owner/repo map), R3 (TASK-5-1/5-2 two-tier draft->ready poll + HITL), R4 (TASK-2-2 uniformity validators), R5 (TASK-3-2 owner/repo re-key + prohibitive-fan-out HITL), R6 (TASK-6-1 per-repo conventions), R7 (slice 6 / status) \u2014 no other blocking issue. Re-propose with slice-1 aligned to the resolver design and I ACK.", + "metadata": { + "payload": { + "reason": "NACK on slice-1 (TASK-1-1) \u2014 the migration mechanism is architecturally impossible and contradicts the ratified architect design (risk R1, my highest-severity item). TASK-1-1 instructs the coder to make the CONTRACT-MODEL migration validator in shared/egg_contracts/models.py \"populate each slice's absent `repo` with the pipeline's primary repo\" and \"normalize any legacy singleton pipeline repo into the one-element list.\" Neither is possible from inside the contract model: a legacy schemaVersion-1.3 contract's JSON carries NO repo anywhere (the Contract model has no repo field \u2014 verified: models.py mentions 'repo' only in field docstrings at :351/:435), and the primary repo lives on the SEPARATELY-loaded orchestrator Pipeline (orchestrator/models.py:1131), which the contract migration validator cannot see. So the model validator has nothing to read to fill Slice.repo, and cannot reach a \"legacy singleton pipeline repo\" at all. The architect (aeb3528, ACKed) explicitly resolved exactly this: \"the Contract model cannot inject the pipeline repo \u2014 it carries no repo field \u2014 so None->primary is a runtime resolver, not a model migration,\" implemented as resolve_slice_repo(slice, pipeline) at the ORCHESTRATOR layer, with the contract migration being a PURE ADDITIVE after-stamp (schemaVersion 1.3->1.4; Slice.repo stays None on legacy load; NOT filled in the validator). This is the load-bearing chain root \u2014 a broken migration cascades across refine/plan/implement and breaks the AC-1/AC-8 back-compat baseline. REQUIRED FIX: rewrite TASK-1-1 (and its acceptance + TASK-1-3 tests) to align with the architect: (1) the shared/egg_contracts/models.py migration is a pure additive schemaVersion 1.3->1.4 stamp mirroring _migrate_schema_version_to_1_3 \u2014 it does NOT populate Slice.repo and does NOT normalize a pipeline repo; (2) absent Slice.repo => primary is a RUNTIME resolver (resolve_slice_repo(slice, pipeline)) at the orchestrator layer, taking the pipeline as a second input; (3) legacy singleton Pipeline.repo -> one-element repos list is an orchestrator/models.py concern (TASK-1-2), not the contract migration; (4) make TASK-1-1(b) explicit about whether a persisted repo list lands on the Contract at all, or only on the orchestrator Pipeline. Everything else in the plan is sound and faithful: R2 is correctly handled (TASK-3-1 keeps EGG_PIPELINE_REPO populated with the primary for back-compat + adds the full owner/repo map), R3 (TASK-5-1/5-2 two-tier draft->ready poll + HITL), R4 (TASK-2-2 uniformity validators), R5 (TASK-3-2 owner/repo re-key + prohibitive-fan-out HITL), R6 (TASK-6-1 per-repo conventions), R7 (slice 6 / status) \u2014 no other blocking issue. Re-propose with slice-1 aligned to the resolver design and I ACK.", + "artifact_references": [ + ".egg-state/drafts/3393-plan.md" + ], + "nack_version": 1 + }, + "reason": "NACK on slice-1 (TASK-1-1) \u2014 the migration mechanism is architecturally impossible and contradicts the ratified architect design (risk R1, my highest-severity item). TASK-1-1 instructs the coder to make the CONTRACT-MODEL migration validator in shared/egg_contracts/models.py \"populate each slice's absent `repo` with the pipeline's primary repo\" and \"normalize any legacy singleton pipeline repo into the one-element list.\" Neither is possible from inside the contract model: a legacy schemaVersion-1.3 contract's JSON carries NO repo anywhere (the Contract model has no repo field \u2014 verified: models.py mentions 'repo' only in field docstrings at :351/:435), and the primary repo lives on the SEPARATELY-loaded orchestrator Pipeline (orchestrator/models.py:1131), which the contract migration validator cannot see. So the model validator has nothing to read to fill Slice.repo, and cannot reach a \"legacy singleton pipeline repo\" at all. The architect (aeb3528, ACKed) explicitly resolved exactly this: \"the Contract model cannot inject the pipeline repo \u2014 it carries no repo field \u2014 so None->primary is a runtime resolver, not a model migration,\" implemented as resolve_slice_repo(slice, pipeline) at the ORCHESTRATOR layer, with the contract migration being a PURE ADDITIVE after-stamp (schemaVersion 1.3->1.4; Slice.repo stays None on legacy load; NOT filled in the validator). This is the load-bearing chain root \u2014 a broken migration cascades across refine/plan/implement and breaks the AC-1/AC-8 back-compat baseline. REQUIRED FIX: rewrite TASK-1-1 (and its acceptance + TASK-1-3 tests) to align with the architect: (1) the shared/egg_contracts/models.py migration is a pure additive schemaVersion 1.3->1.4 stamp mirroring _migrate_schema_version_to_1_3 \u2014 it does NOT populate Slice.repo and does NOT normalize a pipeline repo; (2) absent Slice.repo => primary is a RUNTIME resolver (resolve_slice_repo(slice, pipeline)) at the orchestrator layer, taking the pipeline as a second input; (3) legacy singleton Pipeline.repo -> one-element repos list is an orchestrator/models.py concern (TASK-1-2), not the contract migration; (4) make TASK-1-1(b) explicit about whether a persisted repo list lands on the Contract at all, or only on the orchestrator Pipeline. Everything else in the plan is sound and faithful: R2 is correctly handled (TASK-3-1 keeps EGG_PIPELINE_REPO populated with the primary for back-compat + adds the full owner/repo map), R3 (TASK-5-1/5-2 two-tier draft->ready poll + HITL), R4 (TASK-2-2 uniformity validators), R5 (TASK-3-2 owner/repo re-key + prohibitive-fan-out HITL), R6 (TASK-6-1 per-repo conventions), R7 (slice 6 / status) \u2014 no other blocking issue. Re-propose with slice-1 aligned to the resolver design and I ACK.", + "revision_count": 1 + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:16:24.617148+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "d59adc84-d83f-42", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "risk_analyst", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:16:26.473323+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "8f53e76e-05d4-44", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "task_planner", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "one-shot event handler action=propose (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:16:32.586548+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "e917de81-12c6-47", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "reviewer_plan", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "one-shot event handler action=ack (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:16:33.580978+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "c87e8a25-984b-46", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "risk_analyst", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "context-measure occ=155460 util=0.16 cache_hit=0.92 decision=below_threshold", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:16:37.749146+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "66f9a3f0-99ef-49", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "reviewer_plan", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:16:43.194119+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "d8724fa7-93ca-4f", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "task_planner", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:16:48.553515+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "07e0656d-7f00-45", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "overseer", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:17:07.869666+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "d1050255-5d4f-47", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "risk_analyst", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "context-measure occ=133405 util=0.13 cache_hit=0.98 decision=below_threshold", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:17:45.306131+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "09258da6-b8c1-49", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "task_planner", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:18:50.763496+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "55df4614-5958-48", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "reviewer_plan", + "to_role": "architect", + "message_type": "CONSENSUS_ACK", + "subject": "ACK from reviewer_plan for architect", + "body": "Architecture is well-grounded and honors the operator rulings + risk mitigations. Independently re-verified the load-bearing NEW-machinery claims against the live tree: no mark_pr_ready/ready_for_review verb exists in gateway.py or gateway_client/_pr.py (genuinely new), create_slice_pr already carries draft:bool (_pr.py:42,152), and the third repos[0] collapse (overseer_repo = pipeline_repos[0]) is real at routes/pipelines.py:732. R1 addressed (F1/layer_1: additive after-stamp schema 1.3->1.4 + runtime resolve_slice_repo resolver, correctly noting the Contract model cannot inject primary). R2 addressed (layer_4: overseer_repo=pipeline.primary_repo, EGG_PIPELINE_REPO retained, full owner/repo map exposed alongside \u2014 not instead of \u2014 the primary scalar). R3 addressed at the DESIGN level (layer_6/slice-6: merge-detection uses state+mergedAt, NOT head-SHA equality \u2014 the squash/rebase trap risk_analyst emphasized; bounded poll on the reconcile cadence; fall-through to HITL rather than hanging; own slice, flagged most-underestimated). R4/R5/R6 addressed (layers 3/4/7: submission-entry uniformity validators, owner/repo re-key per ruling #6, per-repo test-gate/diff scoping). Slice DAG is sound: S1 load-bearing root, S2 file-disjoint parallel branch, pipelines.py serial spine honestly acknowledged under #3046. Architect correctly delegates the final DAG + the concrete cq-1 external-condition declaration mechanism (arch-q1) to task_planner.", + "metadata": { + "payload": { + "artifact_references": [ + ".egg-state/agent-outputs/3393-architect-output.json", + ".egg-state/agent-outputs/3393-architect-slices.yaml" + ], + "reason": "Architecture is well-grounded and honors the operator rulings + risk mitigations. Independently re-verified the load-bearing NEW-machinery claims against the live tree: no mark_pr_ready/ready_for_review verb exists in gateway.py or gateway_client/_pr.py (genuinely new), create_slice_pr already carries draft:bool (_pr.py:42,152), and the third repos[0] collapse (overseer_repo = pipeline_repos[0]) is real at routes/pipelines.py:732. R1 addressed (F1/layer_1: additive after-stamp schema 1.3->1.4 + runtime resolve_slice_repo resolver, correctly noting the Contract model cannot inject primary). R2 addressed (layer_4: overseer_repo=pipeline.primary_repo, EGG_PIPELINE_REPO retained, full owner/repo map exposed alongside \u2014 not instead of \u2014 the primary scalar). R3 addressed at the DESIGN level (layer_6/slice-6: merge-detection uses state+mergedAt, NOT head-SHA equality \u2014 the squash/rebase trap risk_analyst emphasized; bounded poll on the reconcile cadence; fall-through to HITL rather than hanging; own slice, flagged most-underestimated). R4/R5/R6 addressed (layers 3/4/7: submission-entry uniformity validators, owner/repo re-key per ruling #6, per-repo test-gate/diff scoping). Slice DAG is sound: S1 load-bearing root, S2 file-disjoint parallel branch, pipelines.py serial spine honestly acknowledged under #3046. Architect correctly delegates the final DAG + the concrete cq-1 external-condition declaration mechanism (arch-q1) to task_planner.", + "ack_version": 1 + }, + "version": 1 + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:18:53.011442+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "b3590f9c-7519-4b", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "orchestrator", + "to_role": "architect", + "message_type": "STATUS", + "subject": "Ready to confirm \u2014 all confirm preconditions satisfied", + "body": "Your proposal (version 1) is ready to confirm \u2014 all blocking reviews are clear and global confirm preconditions are met. Run `egg-orch consensus confirmed` to confirm.", + "metadata": { + "ready_to_confirm": true, + "version": 1 + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:18:53.013033+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "d80ef3d6-4e5e-42", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "reviewer_plan", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:18:53.413194+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "a6ff760f-214e-41", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "architect", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "CONSENSUS_CONFIRMED", + "subject": "Consensus confirmed by architect", + "body": "orchestrator-side confirm (#3064 event loop)", + "metadata": {}, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:18:57.623682+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "4b2030c0-c4d4-46", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "reviewer_plan", + "to_role": "simplifier", + "message_type": "CONSENSUS_ACK", + "subject": "ACK from reviewer_plan for simplifier", + "body": "3393-plan-human.md is a faithful, accurate plain-language rendering of the 6-slice plan. Verified against the architect design + task_planner slice chain: the serial-spine rationale (five steps touch the same large file, steps 1&3 touch a second shared file) is accurate; step 1 correctly describes the additive schema bump with absent-slice-repo => primary back-compat; step 2 correctly states the two uniformity gates (visibility + auth) reject mixed sets with an error naming offending repos, and same-name repos are allowed per ruling #6; step 3 the owner/repo re-key + repos[0]-collapse removal + watchdog test; step 4 lazy-per-repo branch/context-PR with cross-referencing; step 5 the cq-1 two-tier hold (auto draft->ready on upstream merge; HITL for beyond-merge-state; development never serialized, only PR merge-readiness); step 6 per-repo test/diff/conventions. The N=1 behavior-identical regression guarantee and the deferred items (mixed auth, richer merge machinery) are correctly surfaced. No overclaims, omissions that mislead, or misrepresentations of the operator rulings.", + "metadata": { + "payload": { + "artifact_references": [ + ".egg-state/drafts/3393-plan-human.md" + ], + "reason": "3393-plan-human.md is a faithful, accurate plain-language rendering of the 6-slice plan. Verified against the architect design + task_planner slice chain: the serial-spine rationale (five steps touch the same large file, steps 1&3 touch a second shared file) is accurate; step 1 correctly describes the additive schema bump with absent-slice-repo => primary back-compat; step 2 correctly states the two uniformity gates (visibility + auth) reject mixed sets with an error naming offending repos, and same-name repos are allowed per ruling #6; step 3 the owner/repo re-key + repos[0]-collapse removal + watchdog test; step 4 lazy-per-repo branch/context-PR with cross-referencing; step 5 the cq-1 two-tier hold (auto draft->ready on upstream merge; HITL for beyond-merge-state; development never serialized, only PR merge-readiness); step 6 per-repo test/diff/conventions. The N=1 behavior-identical regression guarantee and the deferred items (mixed auth, richer merge machinery) are correctly surfaced. No overclaims, omissions that mislead, or misrepresentations of the operator rulings.", + "ack_version": 1 + }, + "version": 1 + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:18:59.251089+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "6c28690f-44ca-47", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "orchestrator", + "to_role": "simplifier", + "message_type": "STATUS", + "subject": "Ready to confirm \u2014 all confirm preconditions satisfied", + "body": "Your proposal (version 1) is ready to confirm \u2014 all blocking reviews are clear and global confirm preconditions are met. Run `egg-orch consensus confirmed` to confirm.", + "metadata": { + "ready_to_confirm": true, + "version": 1 + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:18:59.252467+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "185635b0-a34f-4a", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "reviewer_plan", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "one-shot event handler action=ack (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:19:01.360785+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "af54d62d-579e-4e", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "simplifier", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "CONSENSUS_CONFIRMED", + "subject": "Consensus confirmed by simplifier", + "body": "orchestrator-side confirm (#3064 event loop)", + "metadata": {}, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:19:04.891281+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "726f06e2-483d-4b", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "reviewer_plan", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "context-measure occ=99541 util=0.10 cache_hit=0.93 decision=below_threshold", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:19:06.609723+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "75a759b6-4421-4d", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "task_planner", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "CONSENSUS_PROPOSE", + "subject": "Proposal from task_planner", + "body": "v2 \u2014 addresses risk_analyst R1 NACK on slice-1 (CONCEDED; realigned to ratified architect design aeb3528). The original TASK-1-1 wrongly instructed the coder to populate Slice.repo and normalize the pipeline repo INSIDE the shared/egg_contracts/models.py migration validator \u2014 architecturally impossible: the Contract model has no repo field and cannot see the separately-loaded orchestrator Pipeline. Realigned to the two-layer resolver design: (1) CONTRACT layer (shared/egg_contracts/models.py) \u2014 add Slice.repo:str|None and bump schemaVersion 1.3\u21921.4 as a PURE ADDITIVE after-stamp `_migrate_schema_version_to_1_4` mirroring `_migrate_schema_version_to_1_3` verbatim (guard ==\"1.3\", idempotent, NO field mutation; Slice.repo stays None on legacy load); the migration does NOT fill repo and does NOT reference any pipeline; no repo list on the Contract. (2) ORCHESTRATOR layer (orchestrator/models.py) \u2014 RepoSpec + Pipeline.repos with a validator that synthesizes the list from a legacy singleton and mirrors repos[0] back for legacy readers, a primary_repo property, and the RUNTIME resolver `resolve_slice_repo(slice, pipeline) -> slice.repo or pipeline.primary_repo` where absent\u21d2primary is resolved. (3) TASK-1-3 tests split across both layers (contract test_models.py: additive stamp + Slice.repo stays None; orchestrator test_models.py: resolver, legacy-singleton synthesis, primary_repo, N=1). Prose Slice-1 section, AC-3 mapping, PR description bullet 1, and risk notes all updated to match. Slices 2\u20136 unchanged (risk_analyst confirmed R2\u2013R7 sound). Re-validated: parse_plan success, preflight OK, forest/overlap/role-alignment all clean; new orchestrator/tests/test_models.py confirmed tester-writable.\n\n**Adversarial re-review**\n\n**Your v2 review has TWO equal-weight mandates:**\n\n1. **Verify named v1 blockers were addressed** \u2014 confirm the producer fixed what you NACK'd.\n2. **Audit the delta since your last review (per REVIEWER-SYNC.md: `git log {last_reviewed_commit}..HEAD --not origin/{base_branch} -p` \u2014 the commits landed since the version you last verdicted, NOT the whole accumulated proposal surface) as a fresh reviewer** \u2014 ignore your v1 NACK history. Read that diff as if you'd never seen the prior version. Apply your lens (security threat-model, concurrency races, contract AC, line-by-line bugs, silent-fallback shapes \u2014 whichever your role owns) to the delta itself, not to whether your previous concerns were satisfied. **Mandate 2 is bounded to this delta** \u2014 it does NOT ask you to re-traverse the whole accumulated surface from earlier cycles; that work was amortized when you first reviewed those commits.\n\nBoth mandates have equal weight. If (1) passes but (2) finds new issues, you NACK. ACK requires both pass.\n\n**The named-blockers anchor is a known trap. Every reviewer lens has a mandate-2 in its own territory** \u2014 security has newly-introduced threat surfaces, concurrency has newly-introduced races, contract has newly-introduced AC drift, code has newly-introduced line-by-line bugs. The four issues that escaped PR #2724 to the GitHub bot were all of code-lens shape (`${ANSWER}` as bare Python, deprecated `datetime.utcnow()`, non-atomic write, bare `except: pass`) \u2014 the persistent reviewer correctly answered mandate 1 (\"did prior issues get fixed? yes\") and skipped mandate 2 (\"does this delta introduce new issues? actually yes\"). The shape generalizes: whatever your lens, this delta can introduce issues your prior NACK didn't name. Watching the producer deliver a targeted fix pulls strongly toward \"verify my fix-request landed \u2192 ACK.\" Recognize the pull and do mandate 2 anyway.\n\n**How to execute mandate 2:**\n\n- Read each new hunk as an operator who's about to copy-paste / run / integrate it. Would this code execute as written? Would these docs send a copy-paster down a working path?\n- Apply every rubric pass to the new hunks. New issues outside the scope of your prior NACK are blocking; your prior NACK does not bound this re-review.\n- **Fresh-reviewer simulation.** Before issuing your v2 verdict, ask: would a reviewer who has only seen this delta (the commits since your last review) with no NACK history ACK this? If you can't argue yes from that diff alone, NACK.\n- **External-bot anchor.** Imagine `egg-reviewer[bot]` reads only this delta (the commits since your last review) with no NACK context. What would it flag? Anything it'd flag, you should NACK first.\n\n**Your v2 verdict must enumerate both halves** so mandate 2 doesn't silently disappear from the record:\n\n- (a) Which v1 blockers you verified-fixed (mandate 1).\n- (b) What new issues you audited-and-did-not-find (mandate 2). Name the specific shapes you checked \u2014 not \"reviewed thoroughly,\" but \"checked for silent fallbacks, doc-snippet executability, API-deprecation, atomicity of file writes.\" If you can't enumerate (b), you haven't done mandate 2.\n\n**Re-reviews are cheap by design.** Your amortized context means the work is \"read the delta, apply your rubric, decide\" \u2014 minutes, not hours. NACK without hesitance; the orchestrator absorbs cycles. Two NACKs on the same producer where the second names new findings is the correct trajectory, not goalpost-moving. The downstream GitHub reviewer should find nothing in this delta. Anything it catches that lives in this cycle's diff is a miss attributable to this re-review.", + "metadata": { + "payload": { + "summary": "v2 \u2014 addresses risk_analyst R1 NACK on slice-1 (CONCEDED; realigned to ratified architect design aeb3528). The original TASK-1-1 wrongly instructed the coder to populate Slice.repo and normalize the pipeline repo INSIDE the shared/egg_contracts/models.py migration validator \u2014 architecturally impossible: the Contract model has no repo field and cannot see the separately-loaded orchestrator Pipeline. Realigned to the two-layer resolver design: (1) CONTRACT layer (shared/egg_contracts/models.py) \u2014 add Slice.repo:str|None and bump schemaVersion 1.3\u21921.4 as a PURE ADDITIVE after-stamp `_migrate_schema_version_to_1_4` mirroring `_migrate_schema_version_to_1_3` verbatim (guard ==\"1.3\", idempotent, NO field mutation; Slice.repo stays None on legacy load); the migration does NOT fill repo and does NOT reference any pipeline; no repo list on the Contract. (2) ORCHESTRATOR layer (orchestrator/models.py) \u2014 RepoSpec + Pipeline.repos with a validator that synthesizes the list from a legacy singleton and mirrors repos[0] back for legacy readers, a primary_repo property, and the RUNTIME resolver `resolve_slice_repo(slice, pipeline) -> slice.repo or pipeline.primary_repo` where absent\u21d2primary is resolved. (3) TASK-1-3 tests split across both layers (contract test_models.py: additive stamp + Slice.repo stays None; orchestrator test_models.py: resolver, legacy-singleton synthesis, primary_repo, N=1). Prose Slice-1 section, AC-3 mapping, PR description bullet 1, and risk notes all updated to match. Slices 2\u20136 unchanged (risk_analyst confirmed R2\u2013R7 sound). Re-validated: parse_plan success, preflight OK, forest/overlap/role-alignment all clean; new orchestrator/tests/test_models.py confirmed tester-writable.", + "attestation": {}, + "artifacts": [ + ".egg-state/drafts/3393-plan.md" + ], + "risk_considered": "R1 resolved: contract migration is now a pure additive stamp (no field mutation, mirrors the 1.3 precedent); absent\u21d2primary is a runtime resolver at the orchestrator layer taking the pipeline as a second input; legacy singleton\u21d2repos list normalization is an orchestrator/models.py concern; the repo list persists only on the orchestrator Pipeline, never on the Contract. Chain-root ordering still guarantees the schema lands before any producer writes Slice.repo. Remaining risks unchanged: pipelines.py serial spine (linear chain deliberate, do not re-parallelize per #3046); draft\u2192ready poll is a mechanical GitHub signal, not release detection (cq-1); owner/repo re-key prohibitive fan-out \u21d2 new HITL, never silent fallback (ruling #6).", + "commit_sha": "bf02392c8886e25c0b95121056237839b61de719", + "files_changed": [ + ".egg-state/drafts/3393-plan.md", + ".egg-state/agent-outputs/task_planner/brc-memory-issue-3393.md" + ], + "tests_run": [], + "tasks_satisfied": [ + "task-1-1", + "task-1-2", + "task-1-3", + "task-2-1", + "task-2-2", + "task-2-3", + "task-3-1", + "task-3-2", + "task-3-3", + "task-4-1", + "task-4-2", + "task-4-3", + "task-5-1", + "task-5-2", + "task-5-3", + "task-6-1", + "task-6-2", + "task-6-3" + ], + "no_changes_needed": false, + "no_changes_reason": "" + }, + "version": 2, + "commit_sha": "bf02392c8886e25c0b95121056237839b61de719" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:19:58.654525+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "05f70e88-48c7-46", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "orchestrator", + "to_role": "simplifier", + "message_type": "CONSENSUS_RE_REVIEW", + "subject": "Re-review required: task_planner submitted new proposal v2", + "body": "Producer task_planner has submitted a new proposal (version 2) after withdrawal. Your previous confirmation was on an earlier version. Please re-review and ACK/NACK the new proposal.\n\n**Adversarial re-review**\n\n**Your v2 review has TWO equal-weight mandates:**\n\n1. **Verify named v1 blockers were addressed** \u2014 confirm the producer fixed what you NACK'd.\n2. **Audit the delta since your last review (per REVIEWER-SYNC.md: `git log {last_reviewed_commit}..HEAD --not origin/{base_branch} -p` \u2014 the commits landed since the version you last verdicted, NOT the whole accumulated proposal surface) as a fresh reviewer** \u2014 ignore your v1 NACK history. Read that diff as if you'd never seen the prior version. Apply your lens (security threat-model, concurrency races, contract AC, line-by-line bugs, silent-fallback shapes \u2014 whichever your role owns) to the delta itself, not to whether your previous concerns were satisfied. **Mandate 2 is bounded to this delta** \u2014 it does NOT ask you to re-traverse the whole accumulated surface from earlier cycles; that work was amortized when you first reviewed those commits.\n\nBoth mandates have equal weight. If (1) passes but (2) finds new issues, you NACK. ACK requires both pass.\n\n**The named-blockers anchor is a known trap. Every reviewer lens has a mandate-2 in its own territory** \u2014 security has newly-introduced threat surfaces, concurrency has newly-introduced races, contract has newly-introduced AC drift, code has newly-introduced line-by-line bugs. The four issues that escaped PR #2724 to the GitHub bot were all of code-lens shape (`${ANSWER}` as bare Python, deprecated `datetime.utcnow()`, non-atomic write, bare `except: pass`) \u2014 the persistent reviewer correctly answered mandate 1 (\"did prior issues get fixed? yes\") and skipped mandate 2 (\"does this delta introduce new issues? actually yes\"). The shape generalizes: whatever your lens, this delta can introduce issues your prior NACK didn't name. Watching the producer deliver a targeted fix pulls strongly toward \"verify my fix-request landed \u2192 ACK.\" Recognize the pull and do mandate 2 anyway.\n\n**How to execute mandate 2:**\n\n- Read each new hunk as an operator who's about to copy-paste / run / integrate it. Would this code execute as written? Would these docs send a copy-paster down a working path?\n- Apply every rubric pass to the new hunks. New issues outside the scope of your prior NACK are blocking; your prior NACK does not bound this re-review.\n- **Fresh-reviewer simulation.** Before issuing your v2 verdict, ask: would a reviewer who has only seen this delta (the commits since your last review) with no NACK history ACK this? If you can't argue yes from that diff alone, NACK.\n- **External-bot anchor.** Imagine `egg-reviewer[bot]` reads only this delta (the commits since your last review) with no NACK context. What would it flag? Anything it'd flag, you should NACK first.\n\n**Your v2 verdict must enumerate both halves** so mandate 2 doesn't silently disappear from the record:\n\n- (a) Which v1 blockers you verified-fixed (mandate 1).\n- (b) What new issues you audited-and-did-not-find (mandate 2). Name the specific shapes you checked \u2014 not \"reviewed thoroughly,\" but \"checked for silent fallbacks, doc-snippet executability, API-deprecation, atomicity of file writes.\" If you can't enumerate (b), you haven't done mandate 2.\n\n**Re-reviews are cheap by design.** Your amortized context means the work is \"read the delta, apply your rubric, decide\" \u2014 minutes, not hours. NACK without hesitance; the orchestrator absorbs cycles. Two NACKs on the same producer where the second names new findings is the correct trajectory, not goalpost-moving. The downstream GitHub reviewer should find nothing in this delta. Anything it catches that lives in this cycle's diff is a miss attributable to this re-review.", + "metadata": { + "producer_role": "task_planner", + "version": 2 + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:19:58.656400+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "2f6032ac-f993-45", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "simplifier", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "CONSENSUS_CONFIRMED", + "subject": "Consensus confirmed by simplifier", + "body": "orchestrator-side confirm (#3064 event loop)", + "metadata": {}, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:20:03.068347+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "5496c91b-94ac-47", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "risk_analyst", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "one-shot event handler action=ack (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:20:04.534516+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "eae5602a-be35-44", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "reviewer_plan", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "one-shot event handler action=ack (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:20:05.348911+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "29a68c6d-e578-47", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "task_planner", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "context-measure occ=164086 util=0.16 cache_hit=0.99 decision=below_threshold", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:20:10.706235+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "e9a42212-c41c-40", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "risk_analyst", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:20:12.892530+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "3bdcc090-9a6e-40", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "reviewer_plan", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:20:15.920286+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "b84d670a-1463-42", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "overseer", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:20:33.445358+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "c9513cac-e509-44", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "risk_analyst", + "to_role": "task_planner", + "message_type": "CONSENSUS_ACK", + "subject": "ACK from risk_analyst for task_planner", + "body": "ACK v2 (bf02392c8). My v1 NACK \u2014 the slice-1 contract-model migration was architecturally impossible (a schemaVersion-1.3 contract carries no repo and cannot see the orchestrator Pipeline, so the validator had nothing to fill Slice.repo from) \u2014 is fully resolved. v2 realigns slice-1 to the ratified architect (aeb3528) two-layer design, addressing all four required-fix points: (1) TASK-1-1 is now a PURE ADDITIVE _migrate_schema_version_to_1_4 stamp mirroring _migrate_schema_version_to_1_3 verbatim (guard on \"1.3\", idempotent, NO field mutation \u2014 Slice.repo stays None on legacy load), and explicitly does NOT populate Slice.repo or reference any pipeline repo, and adds no repo list to the Contract; (2) absent Slice.repo \u21d2 primary is now the RUNTIME resolver resolve_slice_repo(slice, pipeline) at the orchestrator layer (TASK-1-2), taking the pipeline as the second input the contract model cannot provide; (3) legacy singleton Pipeline.repo \u2192 one-element repos list is an orchestrator/models.py concern (TASK-1-2 RepoSpec + Pipeline.repos + synthesize/mirror-back validator), not the contract migration; (4) the plan states outright that the repo list lives only on the orchestrator Pipeline, never on the Contract. TASK-1-3 tests are correctly split: contract-layer asserts Slice.repo stays None on legacy load (no model-filled repo) + idempotent 1.4 stamp + four prior migration branches intact; orchestrator-layer asserts resolve_slice_repo (set\u21d2slice.repo, None\u21d2primary), legacy-singleton\u21d2one-element repos + mirror-back, primary_repo==repos[0].repo, N=1 parity. Verified anchors live: _migrate_schema_version_to_1_3 at models.py:1049 (bump :1067-68), schemaVersion docstring ~:860 \u2014 all accurate. Diff is confined to the slice-1 region (slice-1 detail, AC-3 row, notes, pr summary, TASK-1-1/1-2/1-3); slices 2\u20136 unchanged, so my v1 finding that R2 (TASK-3-1 preserves EGG_PIPELINE_REPO primary + adds owner/repo map), R3 (TASK-5-1/5-2 two-tier draft\u2192ready poll + HITL), R4 (TASK-2-2 uniformity validators), R5 (TASK-3-2 owner/repo re-key + prohibitive-fan-out HITL), R6 (TASK-6-1 per-repo conventions), R7 (slice 6 status) are all sound still holds. No blocking issues remain.", + "metadata": { + "payload": { + "artifact_references": [ + ".egg-state/drafts/3393-plan.md" + ], + "reason": "ACK v2 (bf02392c8). My v1 NACK \u2014 the slice-1 contract-model migration was architecturally impossible (a schemaVersion-1.3 contract carries no repo and cannot see the orchestrator Pipeline, so the validator had nothing to fill Slice.repo from) \u2014 is fully resolved. v2 realigns slice-1 to the ratified architect (aeb3528) two-layer design, addressing all four required-fix points: (1) TASK-1-1 is now a PURE ADDITIVE _migrate_schema_version_to_1_4 stamp mirroring _migrate_schema_version_to_1_3 verbatim (guard on \"1.3\", idempotent, NO field mutation \u2014 Slice.repo stays None on legacy load), and explicitly does NOT populate Slice.repo or reference any pipeline repo, and adds no repo list to the Contract; (2) absent Slice.repo \u21d2 primary is now the RUNTIME resolver resolve_slice_repo(slice, pipeline) at the orchestrator layer (TASK-1-2), taking the pipeline as the second input the contract model cannot provide; (3) legacy singleton Pipeline.repo \u2192 one-element repos list is an orchestrator/models.py concern (TASK-1-2 RepoSpec + Pipeline.repos + synthesize/mirror-back validator), not the contract migration; (4) the plan states outright that the repo list lives only on the orchestrator Pipeline, never on the Contract. TASK-1-3 tests are correctly split: contract-layer asserts Slice.repo stays None on legacy load (no model-filled repo) + idempotent 1.4 stamp + four prior migration branches intact; orchestrator-layer asserts resolve_slice_repo (set\u21d2slice.repo, None\u21d2primary), legacy-singleton\u21d2one-element repos + mirror-back, primary_repo==repos[0].repo, N=1 parity. Verified anchors live: _migrate_schema_version_to_1_3 at models.py:1049 (bump :1067-68), schemaVersion docstring ~:860 \u2014 all accurate. Diff is confined to the slice-1 region (slice-1 detail, AC-3 row, notes, pr summary, TASK-1-1/1-2/1-3); slices 2\u20136 unchanged, so my v1 finding that R2 (TASK-3-1 preserves EGG_PIPELINE_REPO primary + adds owner/repo map), R3 (TASK-5-1/5-2 two-tier draft\u2192ready poll + HITL), R4 (TASK-2-2 uniformity validators), R5 (TASK-3-2 owner/repo re-key + prohibitive-fan-out HITL), R6 (TASK-6-1 per-repo conventions), R7 (slice 6 status) are all sound still holds. No blocking issues remain.", + "ack_version": 2 + }, + "version": 2 + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:21:06.948250+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "0779c76c-ea90-45", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "orchestrator", + "to_role": "risk_analyst", + "message_type": "STATUS", + "subject": "Ready to confirm \u2014 all confirm preconditions satisfied", + "body": "Your proposal (version 1) is ready to confirm \u2014 all blocking reviews are clear and global confirm preconditions are met. Run `egg-orch consensus confirmed` to confirm.", + "metadata": { + "ready_to_confirm": true, + "version": 1 + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:21:06.949052+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "450a3a6b-da1e-40", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "risk_analyst", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "CONSENSUS_CONFIRMED", + "subject": "Consensus confirmed by risk_analyst", + "body": "orchestrator-side confirm (#3064 event loop)", + "metadata": {}, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:21:11.752223+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "b294684c-787e-44", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "reviewer_plan", + "to_role": "task_planner", + "message_type": "CONSENSUS_NACK", + "subject": "NACK from reviewer_plan for task_planner", + "body": "v2 correctly realigned slice-1 to the two-layer resolver design (risk_analyst R1) \u2014 R1/R2/R4/R5/R6 remain addressed. But v2 did NOT touch slice-5, so my standing R3 block is unresolved. risk_analyst flagged R3 requires_human_review=true and said the poll's FAILURE semantics must be pinned by the plan; the architect design I ACKed (aeb3528, layer_6) already pins them \u2014 TASK-5-1 just needs to fold them in. Three concrete gaps in TASK-5-1/acceptance:\n\n(1) MERGE-DETECTION unpinned: TASK-5-1 says only 'observe the upstream slice's PR merge state'. Pin it to the PR merged-boolean / merged_at (gh pr view --json state,mergedAt), NOT head-SHA equality \u2014 a squash/rebase merge produces a merge commit SHA != the PR head, so SHA-equality detection misfires. (architect aeb3528 layer_6 specifies exactly this.)\n\n(2) CLOSED-UNMERGED TERMINAL unpinned: TASK-5-1 + acceptance cover only the happy path (upstream merges => ready). Pin the terminal for upstream PR CLOSED-not-merged: do NOT auto-ready; escalate to a HITL hold (recommended default). Tier B (TASK-5-2) is beyond-merge-state (release/publish/version-pin) and does NOT cover this Tier-A failure terminal.\n\n(3) BOUND/TIMEOUT unpinned: the planning note calls the poll 'bounded' but defines no bound. Pin a bound/timeout so a never-merging upstream escalates to HITL rather than leaving the dependent PR draft indefinitely.\n\nFix: extend TASK-5-1 (description + acceptance) and TASK-5-3 (tests) to pin (a) merged-boolean/merged_at detection, (b) closed-unmerged => HITL, and (c) a poll bound/timeout => HITL. Add test cases for the closed-unmerged and never-merging terminals (mocked). Once TASK-5-1 carries these three, R3 clears and I ACK.", + "metadata": { + "payload": { + "reason": "v2 correctly realigned slice-1 to the two-layer resolver design (risk_analyst R1) \u2014 R1/R2/R4/R5/R6 remain addressed. But v2 did NOT touch slice-5, so my standing R3 block is unresolved. risk_analyst flagged R3 requires_human_review=true and said the poll's FAILURE semantics must be pinned by the plan; the architect design I ACKed (aeb3528, layer_6) already pins them \u2014 TASK-5-1 just needs to fold them in. Three concrete gaps in TASK-5-1/acceptance:\n\n(1) MERGE-DETECTION unpinned: TASK-5-1 says only 'observe the upstream slice's PR merge state'. Pin it to the PR merged-boolean / merged_at (gh pr view --json state,mergedAt), NOT head-SHA equality \u2014 a squash/rebase merge produces a merge commit SHA != the PR head, so SHA-equality detection misfires. (architect aeb3528 layer_6 specifies exactly this.)\n\n(2) CLOSED-UNMERGED TERMINAL unpinned: TASK-5-1 + acceptance cover only the happy path (upstream merges => ready). Pin the terminal for upstream PR CLOSED-not-merged: do NOT auto-ready; escalate to a HITL hold (recommended default). Tier B (TASK-5-2) is beyond-merge-state (release/publish/version-pin) and does NOT cover this Tier-A failure terminal.\n\n(3) BOUND/TIMEOUT unpinned: the planning note calls the poll 'bounded' but defines no bound. Pin a bound/timeout so a never-merging upstream escalates to HITL rather than leaving the dependent PR draft indefinitely.\n\nFix: extend TASK-5-1 (description + acceptance) and TASK-5-3 (tests) to pin (a) merged-boolean/merged_at detection, (b) closed-unmerged => HITL, and (c) a poll bound/timeout => HITL. Add test cases for the closed-unmerged and never-merging terminals (mocked). Once TASK-5-1 carries these three, R3 clears and I ACK.", + "artifact_references": [ + ".egg-state/drafts/3393-plan.md" + ], + "nack_version": 2 + }, + "reason": "v2 correctly realigned slice-1 to the two-layer resolver design (risk_analyst R1) \u2014 R1/R2/R4/R5/R6 remain addressed. But v2 did NOT touch slice-5, so my standing R3 block is unresolved. risk_analyst flagged R3 requires_human_review=true and said the poll's FAILURE semantics must be pinned by the plan; the architect design I ACKed (aeb3528, layer_6) already pins them \u2014 TASK-5-1 just needs to fold them in. Three concrete gaps in TASK-5-1/acceptance:\n\n(1) MERGE-DETECTION unpinned: TASK-5-1 says only 'observe the upstream slice's PR merge state'. Pin it to the PR merged-boolean / merged_at (gh pr view --json state,mergedAt), NOT head-SHA equality \u2014 a squash/rebase merge produces a merge commit SHA != the PR head, so SHA-equality detection misfires. (architect aeb3528 layer_6 specifies exactly this.)\n\n(2) CLOSED-UNMERGED TERMINAL unpinned: TASK-5-1 + acceptance cover only the happy path (upstream merges => ready). Pin the terminal for upstream PR CLOSED-not-merged: do NOT auto-ready; escalate to a HITL hold (recommended default). Tier B (TASK-5-2) is beyond-merge-state (release/publish/version-pin) and does NOT cover this Tier-A failure terminal.\n\n(3) BOUND/TIMEOUT unpinned: the planning note calls the poll 'bounded' but defines no bound. Pin a bound/timeout so a never-merging upstream escalates to HITL rather than leaving the dependent PR draft indefinitely.\n\nFix: extend TASK-5-1 (description + acceptance) and TASK-5-3 (tests) to pin (a) merged-boolean/merged_at detection, (b) closed-unmerged => HITL, and (c) a poll bound/timeout => HITL. Add test cases for the closed-unmerged and never-merging terminals (mocked). Once TASK-5-1 carries these three, R3 clears and I ACK.", + "revision_count": 1 + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:21:20.412520+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "0b4ba53d-c1d8-4f", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "risk_analyst", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "context-measure occ=152236 util=0.15 cache_hit=0.96 decision=below_threshold", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:21:23.324244+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "d693df9b-8a2d-4b", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "task_planner", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "one-shot event handler action=propose (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:21:25.542238+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "2b10ec87-7d52-4f", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "reviewer_plan", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "context-measure occ=121294 util=0.12 cache_hit=0.97 decision=below_threshold", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:21:28.480259+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "710d6e5f-d328-4d", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "task_planner", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:21:37.205433+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "527bf8d1-157f-4b", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "overseer", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:23:46.864099+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "2dbcab55-d574-41", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "task_planner", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "CONSENSUS_PROPOSE", + "subject": "Proposal from task_planner", + "body": "v3 \u2014 addresses reviewer_plan R3 NACK on slice-5 (CONCEDED; aligned to architect aeb3528 layer_6). TASK-5-1 (description + acceptance) and TASK-5-3 (tests) now pin the three previously-unpinned failure semantics: (a) MERGE DETECTION uses the PR merged boolean / mergedAt (gh pr view --json state,mergedAt), NOT head-SHA equality (a squash/rebase merge yields a merge-commit SHA \u2260 PR head, so SHA-equality misfires); on merged\u21d2 a NEW gateway verb mark_pr_ready(repo, pr_number) wrapping the existing gh pr ready (github_client.py:124) transitions the dependent PR draft\u2192ready, with the poll living on the existing reconcile cadence (extend stacked_pr_reconciler.py or a small cross_repo_merge_gate.py). (b) CLOSED-UNMERGED TERMINAL: an upstream PR closed-not-merged does NOT auto-ready \u2014 it escalates to a HITL hold and is surfaced on status (distinct from Tier B's beyond-merge-state conditions; it is the Tier-A failure terminal). (c) BOUND/TIMEOUT: the poll is bounded, and a never-merging upstream that exceeds the bound escalates to the HITL hold rather than leaving the PR draft indefinitely (\"if the auto path cannot resolve, fall through to the HITL hold rather than hanging\"). TASK-5-3 adds mocked test cases for the squash-merge SHA\u2260head path, the closed-unmerged\u21d2HITL terminal, and the never-merging\u21d2HITL bound. TASK-5-1 file list expanded to include stacked_pr_reconciler.py, gateway_client/_pr.py, gateway/gateway.py, gateway/github_client.py (all coder-writable; overlap clean since slice-5 is a transitive descendant of slices 3&4). Prose Slice-5 section and PR-description bullet 5 updated. Slices 1\u20134, 6 unchanged. Re-validated: parse_plan success, preflight OK, forest/overlap/role-alignment all clean.\n\n**Adversarial re-review**\n\n**Your v3 review has TWO equal-weight mandates:**\n\n1. **Verify named v2 blockers were addressed** \u2014 confirm the producer fixed what you NACK'd.\n2. **Audit the delta since your last review (per REVIEWER-SYNC.md: `git log {last_reviewed_commit}..HEAD --not origin/{base_branch} -p` \u2014 the commits landed since the version you last verdicted, NOT the whole accumulated proposal surface) as a fresh reviewer** \u2014 ignore your v2 NACK history. Read that diff as if you'd never seen the prior version. Apply your lens (security threat-model, concurrency races, contract AC, line-by-line bugs, silent-fallback shapes \u2014 whichever your role owns) to the delta itself, not to whether your previous concerns were satisfied. **Mandate 2 is bounded to this delta** \u2014 it does NOT ask you to re-traverse the whole accumulated surface from earlier cycles; that work was amortized when you first reviewed those commits.\n\nBoth mandates have equal weight. If (1) passes but (2) finds new issues, you NACK. ACK requires both pass.\n\n**The named-blockers anchor is a known trap. Every reviewer lens has a mandate-2 in its own territory** \u2014 security has newly-introduced threat surfaces, concurrency has newly-introduced races, contract has newly-introduced AC drift, code has newly-introduced line-by-line bugs. The four issues that escaped PR #2724 to the GitHub bot were all of code-lens shape (`${ANSWER}` as bare Python, deprecated `datetime.utcnow()`, non-atomic write, bare `except: pass`) \u2014 the persistent reviewer correctly answered mandate 1 (\"did prior issues get fixed? yes\") and skipped mandate 2 (\"does this delta introduce new issues? actually yes\"). The shape generalizes: whatever your lens, this delta can introduce issues your prior NACK didn't name. Watching the producer deliver a targeted fix pulls strongly toward \"verify my fix-request landed \u2192 ACK.\" Recognize the pull and do mandate 2 anyway.\n\n**How to execute mandate 2:**\n\n- Read each new hunk as an operator who's about to copy-paste / run / integrate it. Would this code execute as written? Would these docs send a copy-paster down a working path?\n- Apply every rubric pass to the new hunks. New issues outside the scope of your prior NACK are blocking; your prior NACK does not bound this re-review.\n- **Fresh-reviewer simulation.** Before issuing your v3 verdict, ask: would a reviewer who has only seen this delta (the commits since your last review) with no NACK history ACK this? If you can't argue yes from that diff alone, NACK.\n- **External-bot anchor.** Imagine `egg-reviewer[bot]` reads only this delta (the commits since your last review) with no NACK context. What would it flag? Anything it'd flag, you should NACK first.\n\n**Your v3 verdict must enumerate both halves** so mandate 2 doesn't silently disappear from the record:\n\n- (a) Which v2 blockers you verified-fixed (mandate 1).\n- (b) What new issues you audited-and-did-not-find (mandate 2). Name the specific shapes you checked \u2014 not \"reviewed thoroughly,\" but \"checked for silent fallbacks, doc-snippet executability, API-deprecation, atomicity of file writes.\" If you can't enumerate (b), you haven't done mandate 2.\n\n**Re-reviews are cheap by design.** Your amortized context means the work is \"read the delta, apply your rubric, decide\" \u2014 minutes, not hours. NACK without hesitance; the orchestrator absorbs cycles. Two NACKs on the same producer where the second names new findings is the correct trajectory, not goalpost-moving. The downstream GitHub reviewer should find nothing in this delta. Anything it catches that lives in this cycle's diff is a miss attributable to this re-review.", + "metadata": { + "payload": { + "summary": "v3 \u2014 addresses reviewer_plan R3 NACK on slice-5 (CONCEDED; aligned to architect aeb3528 layer_6). TASK-5-1 (description + acceptance) and TASK-5-3 (tests) now pin the three previously-unpinned failure semantics: (a) MERGE DETECTION uses the PR merged boolean / mergedAt (gh pr view --json state,mergedAt), NOT head-SHA equality (a squash/rebase merge yields a merge-commit SHA \u2260 PR head, so SHA-equality misfires); on merged\u21d2 a NEW gateway verb mark_pr_ready(repo, pr_number) wrapping the existing gh pr ready (github_client.py:124) transitions the dependent PR draft\u2192ready, with the poll living on the existing reconcile cadence (extend stacked_pr_reconciler.py or a small cross_repo_merge_gate.py). (b) CLOSED-UNMERGED TERMINAL: an upstream PR closed-not-merged does NOT auto-ready \u2014 it escalates to a HITL hold and is surfaced on status (distinct from Tier B's beyond-merge-state conditions; it is the Tier-A failure terminal). (c) BOUND/TIMEOUT: the poll is bounded, and a never-merging upstream that exceeds the bound escalates to the HITL hold rather than leaving the PR draft indefinitely (\"if the auto path cannot resolve, fall through to the HITL hold rather than hanging\"). TASK-5-3 adds mocked test cases for the squash-merge SHA\u2260head path, the closed-unmerged\u21d2HITL terminal, and the never-merging\u21d2HITL bound. TASK-5-1 file list expanded to include stacked_pr_reconciler.py, gateway_client/_pr.py, gateway/gateway.py, gateway/github_client.py (all coder-writable; overlap clean since slice-5 is a transitive descendant of slices 3&4). Prose Slice-5 section and PR-description bullet 5 updated. Slices 1\u20134, 6 unchanged. Re-validated: parse_plan success, preflight OK, forest/overlap/role-alignment all clean.", + "attestation": {}, + "artifacts": [ + ".egg-state/drafts/3393-plan.md" + ], + "risk_considered": "R3 resolved: merge detection keyed off merged-state (mergedAt), not head-SHA; both Tier-A failure terminals (closed-unmerged, never-merging/timeout) escalate to a HITL hold rather than hanging or false-readying; new mark_pr_ready verb wraps the existing gh pr ready. Development remains non-serialized (only PR ready-state waits); no release/version auto-detection (cq-1). File-overlap ordering preserved: slice-5's added gateway.py/_pr.py edits sit downstream of slices 3&4 that own them, so #3046 stays clean. R1/R2/R4/R5/R6/R7 remain addressed from v2.", + "commit_sha": "7fb31c8a5b0310379de04bec4a12bd4e3f3e17d9", + "files_changed": [ + ".egg-state/drafts/3393-plan.md", + ".egg-state/agent-outputs/task_planner/brc-memory-issue-3393.md" + ], + "tests_run": [], + "tasks_satisfied": [ + "task-1-1", + "task-1-2", + "task-1-3", + "task-2-1", + "task-2-2", + "task-2-3", + "task-3-1", + "task-3-2", + "task-3-3", + "task-4-1", + "task-4-2", + "task-4-3", + "task-5-1", + "task-5-2", + "task-5-3", + "task-6-1", + "task-6-2", + "task-6-3" + ], + "no_changes_needed": false, + "no_changes_reason": "" + }, + "version": 3, + "commit_sha": "7fb31c8a5b0310379de04bec4a12bd4e3f3e17d9" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:23:56.397754+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "591dc583-8519-4c", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "orchestrator", + "to_role": "risk_analyst", + "message_type": "CONSENSUS_RE_REVIEW", + "subject": "Re-review required: task_planner submitted new proposal v3", + "body": "Producer task_planner has submitted a new proposal (version 3) after withdrawal. Your previous confirmation was on an earlier version. Please re-review and ACK/NACK the new proposal.\n\n**Adversarial re-review**\n\n**Your v3 review has TWO equal-weight mandates:**\n\n1. **Verify named v2 blockers were addressed** \u2014 confirm the producer fixed what you NACK'd.\n2. **Audit the delta since your last review (`git log bf02392c8886e25c0b95121056237839b61de719..7fb31c8a5b0310379de04bec4a12bd4e3f3e17d9 --not origin/ -p` \u2014 the commits landed since the version you last verdicted) as a fresh reviewer** \u2014 ignore your v2 NACK history. Read that diff as if you'd never seen the prior version. Apply your lens (security threat-model, concurrency races, contract AC, line-by-line bugs, silent-fallback shapes \u2014 whichever your role owns) to the delta itself, not to whether your previous concerns were satisfied. **Mandate 2 is bounded to this delta** \u2014 it does NOT ask you to re-traverse the whole accumulated surface from earlier cycles; that work was amortized when you first reviewed those commits.\n\nBoth mandates have equal weight. If (1) passes but (2) finds new issues, you NACK. ACK requires both pass.\n\n**The named-blockers anchor is a known trap. Every reviewer lens has a mandate-2 in its own territory** \u2014 security has newly-introduced threat surfaces, concurrency has newly-introduced races, contract has newly-introduced AC drift, code has newly-introduced line-by-line bugs. The four issues that escaped PR #2724 to the GitHub bot were all of code-lens shape (`${ANSWER}` as bare Python, deprecated `datetime.utcnow()`, non-atomic write, bare `except: pass`) \u2014 the persistent reviewer correctly answered mandate 1 (\"did prior issues get fixed? yes\") and skipped mandate 2 (\"does this delta introduce new issues? actually yes\"). The shape generalizes: whatever your lens, this delta can introduce issues your prior NACK didn't name. Watching the producer deliver a targeted fix pulls strongly toward \"verify my fix-request landed \u2192 ACK.\" Recognize the pull and do mandate 2 anyway.\n\n**How to execute mandate 2:**\n\n- Read each new hunk as an operator who's about to copy-paste / run / integrate it. Would this code execute as written? Would these docs send a copy-paster down a working path?\n- Apply every rubric pass to the new hunks. New issues outside the scope of your prior NACK are blocking; your prior NACK does not bound this re-review.\n- **Fresh-reviewer simulation.** Before issuing your v3 verdict, ask: would a reviewer who has only seen this delta (`bf02392c8886e25c0b95121056237839b61de719..7fb31c8a5b0310379de04bec4a12bd4e3f3e17d9`) with no NACK history ACK this? If you can't argue yes from that diff alone, NACK.\n- **External-bot anchor.** Imagine `egg-reviewer[bot]` reads only this delta (`bf02392c8886e25c0b95121056237839b61de719..7fb31c8a5b0310379de04bec4a12bd4e3f3e17d9`) with no NACK context. What would it flag? Anything it'd flag, you should NACK first.\n\n**Your v3 verdict must enumerate both halves** so mandate 2 doesn't silently disappear from the record:\n\n- (a) Which v2 blockers you verified-fixed (mandate 1).\n- (b) What new issues you audited-and-did-not-find (mandate 2). Name the specific shapes you checked \u2014 not \"reviewed thoroughly,\" but \"checked for silent fallbacks, doc-snippet executability, API-deprecation, atomicity of file writes.\" If you can't enumerate (b), you haven't done mandate 2.\n\n**Re-reviews are cheap by design.** Your amortized context means the work is \"read the delta, apply your rubric, decide\" \u2014 minutes, not hours. NACK without hesitance; the orchestrator absorbs cycles. Two NACKs on the same producer where the second names new findings is the correct trajectory, not goalpost-moving. The downstream GitHub reviewer should find nothing in this delta. Anything it catches that lives in this cycle's diff is a miss attributable to this re-review.", + "metadata": { + "producer_role": "task_planner", + "version": 3 + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:23:56.399420+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "d923b599-0cb4-4f", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "orchestrator", + "to_role": "simplifier", + "message_type": "CONSENSUS_RE_REVIEW", + "subject": "Re-review required: task_planner submitted new proposal v3", + "body": "Producer task_planner has submitted a new proposal (version 3) after withdrawal. Your previous confirmation was on an earlier version. Please re-review and ACK/NACK the new proposal.\n\n**Adversarial re-review**\n\n**Your v3 review has TWO equal-weight mandates:**\n\n1. **Verify named v2 blockers were addressed** \u2014 confirm the producer fixed what you NACK'd.\n2. **Audit the delta since your last review (per REVIEWER-SYNC.md: `git log {last_reviewed_commit}..HEAD --not origin/{base_branch} -p` \u2014 the commits landed since the version you last verdicted, NOT the whole accumulated proposal surface) as a fresh reviewer** \u2014 ignore your v2 NACK history. Read that diff as if you'd never seen the prior version. Apply your lens (security threat-model, concurrency races, contract AC, line-by-line bugs, silent-fallback shapes \u2014 whichever your role owns) to the delta itself, not to whether your previous concerns were satisfied. **Mandate 2 is bounded to this delta** \u2014 it does NOT ask you to re-traverse the whole accumulated surface from earlier cycles; that work was amortized when you first reviewed those commits.\n\nBoth mandates have equal weight. If (1) passes but (2) finds new issues, you NACK. ACK requires both pass.\n\n**The named-blockers anchor is a known trap. Every reviewer lens has a mandate-2 in its own territory** \u2014 security has newly-introduced threat surfaces, concurrency has newly-introduced races, contract has newly-introduced AC drift, code has newly-introduced line-by-line bugs. The four issues that escaped PR #2724 to the GitHub bot were all of code-lens shape (`${ANSWER}` as bare Python, deprecated `datetime.utcnow()`, non-atomic write, bare `except: pass`) \u2014 the persistent reviewer correctly answered mandate 1 (\"did prior issues get fixed? yes\") and skipped mandate 2 (\"does this delta introduce new issues? actually yes\"). The shape generalizes: whatever your lens, this delta can introduce issues your prior NACK didn't name. Watching the producer deliver a targeted fix pulls strongly toward \"verify my fix-request landed \u2192 ACK.\" Recognize the pull and do mandate 2 anyway.\n\n**How to execute mandate 2:**\n\n- Read each new hunk as an operator who's about to copy-paste / run / integrate it. Would this code execute as written? Would these docs send a copy-paster down a working path?\n- Apply every rubric pass to the new hunks. New issues outside the scope of your prior NACK are blocking; your prior NACK does not bound this re-review.\n- **Fresh-reviewer simulation.** Before issuing your v3 verdict, ask: would a reviewer who has only seen this delta (the commits since your last review) with no NACK history ACK this? If you can't argue yes from that diff alone, NACK.\n- **External-bot anchor.** Imagine `egg-reviewer[bot]` reads only this delta (the commits since your last review) with no NACK context. What would it flag? Anything it'd flag, you should NACK first.\n\n**Your v3 verdict must enumerate both halves** so mandate 2 doesn't silently disappear from the record:\n\n- (a) Which v2 blockers you verified-fixed (mandate 1).\n- (b) What new issues you audited-and-did-not-find (mandate 2). Name the specific shapes you checked \u2014 not \"reviewed thoroughly,\" but \"checked for silent fallbacks, doc-snippet executability, API-deprecation, atomicity of file writes.\" If you can't enumerate (b), you haven't done mandate 2.\n\n**Re-reviews are cheap by design.** Your amortized context means the work is \"read the delta, apply your rubric, decide\" \u2014 minutes, not hours. NACK without hesitance; the orchestrator absorbs cycles. Two NACKs on the same producer where the second names new findings is the correct trajectory, not goalpost-moving. The downstream GitHub reviewer should find nothing in this delta. Anything it catches that lives in this cycle's diff is a miss attributable to this re-review.", + "metadata": { + "producer_role": "task_planner", + "version": 3 + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:23:56.400213+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "046e564d-c358-40", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "task_planner", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:23:56.831707+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "0fd6dd15-1570-4a", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "simplifier", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "CONSENSUS_CONFIRMED", + "subject": "Consensus confirmed by simplifier", + "body": "orchestrator-side confirm (#3064 event loop)", + "metadata": {}, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:23:59.910181+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "c5d55d5d-d746-4c", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "risk_analyst", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "one-shot event handler action=ack (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:24:01.504518+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "cdcb3bf7-0ab7-46", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "reviewer_plan", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "one-shot event handler action=ack (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:24:02.209846+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "83a39ae0-9870-40", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "reviewer_plan", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:24:09.884285+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "11822612-1c0c-49", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "task_planner", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "context-measure occ=181759 util=0.18 cache_hit=0.99 decision=below_threshold", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:24:11.175855+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "7fd05bcf-7fa8-42", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "risk_analyst", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:24:13.235707+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "a77cc1c2-7b1f-4e", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "reviewer_plan", + "to_role": "task_planner", + "message_type": "CONSENSUS_ACK", + "subject": "ACK from reviewer_plan for task_planner", + "body": "R3 fully cleared \u2014 v3 pins all three merge-poll failure semantics I NACKed, matching the ACKed architect design (aeb3528 layer_6). Verified in the v3 delta: (1) MERGE-DETECTION \u2014 TASK-5-1(a) now pins the PR merged-boolean/mergedAt (gh pr view --json state,mergedAt), explicitly NOT head-SHA equality (calls out the squash/rebase merge-commit-SHA\u2260head trap); acceptance + TASK-5-3(a) add a squash-merge SHA\u2260head test asserting the transition still fires. (2) CLOSED-UNMERGED TERMINAL \u2014 TASK-5-1(b): upstream state=CLOSED with null mergedAt does NOT auto-ready; escalates to a HITL hold, correctly distinguished from Tier B's beyond-merge-state conditions; TASK-5-3(b) tests it. (3) BOUND/TIMEOUT \u2014 TASK-5-1(c): bounded poll; a never-merging upstream exceeding the bound escalates to the HITL hold rather than leaving the dependent PR draft indefinitely; TASK-5-3(c) tests it. The concrete new machinery is specified: mark_pr_ready(repo, pr_number) wrapping the existing gh pr ready \u2014 independently verified the anchor (gateway/github_client.py:124 has 'pr ready' in the permitted-command allowlist), wired via gateway/gateway.py + orchestrator/gateway_client/_pr.py with the file list updated accordingly. R1 (two-layer resolver, addressed in v2), R2, R4, R5, R6 remain addressed and unchanged. All my carried-forward reviewer obligations (R1/R2/R3) are now satisfied. ACK.", + "metadata": { + "payload": { + "artifact_references": [ + ".egg-state/drafts/3393-plan.md" + ], + "reason": "R3 fully cleared \u2014 v3 pins all three merge-poll failure semantics I NACKed, matching the ACKed architect design (aeb3528 layer_6). Verified in the v3 delta: (1) MERGE-DETECTION \u2014 TASK-5-1(a) now pins the PR merged-boolean/mergedAt (gh pr view --json state,mergedAt), explicitly NOT head-SHA equality (calls out the squash/rebase merge-commit-SHA\u2260head trap); acceptance + TASK-5-3(a) add a squash-merge SHA\u2260head test asserting the transition still fires. (2) CLOSED-UNMERGED TERMINAL \u2014 TASK-5-1(b): upstream state=CLOSED with null mergedAt does NOT auto-ready; escalates to a HITL hold, correctly distinguished from Tier B's beyond-merge-state conditions; TASK-5-3(b) tests it. (3) BOUND/TIMEOUT \u2014 TASK-5-1(c): bounded poll; a never-merging upstream exceeding the bound escalates to the HITL hold rather than leaving the dependent PR draft indefinitely; TASK-5-3(c) tests it. The concrete new machinery is specified: mark_pr_ready(repo, pr_number) wrapping the existing gh pr ready \u2014 independently verified the anchor (gateway/github_client.py:124 has 'pr ready' in the permitted-command allowlist), wired via gateway/gateway.py + orchestrator/gateway_client/_pr.py with the file list updated accordingly. R1 (two-layer resolver, addressed in v2), R2, R4, R5, R6 remain addressed and unchanged. All my carried-forward reviewer obligations (R1/R2/R3) are now satisfied. ACK.", + "ack_version": 3 + }, + "version": 3 + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:24:41.632852+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "c9a7b9c6-f009-42", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "reviewer_plan", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "CONSENSUS_CONFIRMED", + "subject": "Consensus confirmed by reviewer_plan", + "body": "orchestrator-side confirm (#3064 event loop)", + "metadata": {}, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:24:44.081906+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "f5be47b5-c1f1-43", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "reviewer_plan", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "context-measure occ=135696 util=0.14 cache_hit=0.99 decision=below_threshold", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:24:49.935463+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "0448890d-bb76-42", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "risk_analyst", + "to_role": "task_planner", + "message_type": "CONSENSUS_ACK", + "subject": "ACK from risk_analyst for task_planner", + "body": "ACK v3 (7fb31c8a5). The v2\u2192v3 delta is confined to slice-5 (cq-1 merge-sequencing hold) and pins its failure semantics in response to reviewer_plan's R3 NACK \u2014 this is precisely the R3 gap I raised in my original risk assessment (unspecified merge-poll terminal/failure states), so v3 strengthens my own finding. All three of my R3 mitigations are now in the plan verbatim: (1) MERGE DETECTION keys off the PR merged boolean / `mergedAt` (`gh pr view --json state,mergedAt`), NOT head-SHA equality \u2014 the plan explicitly notes a squash/rebase merge yields a merge-commit SHA \u2260 PR head so SHA-equality would misfire; (2) CLOSED-UNMERGED terminal (state=CLOSED, mergedAt=null) does NOT auto-ready and escalates to a HITL hold, distinct from Tier-B; (3) the poll is BOUNDED \u2014 a never-merging upstream exceeding the bound escalates to the same HITL hold rather than leaving the PR draft indefinitely. TASK-5-3 tests cover the happy path plus BOTH failure terminals AND a squash-merge SHA\u2260head case. Implementation anchors verified live: `gh pr ready` at gateway/github_client.py:124 (the new mark_pr_ready verb wraps it); orchestrator/stacked_pr_reconciler.py exists and runs on a fixed 30s cadence via reconcile_once \u2014 extending it for the bounded merge-poll reuses proven machinery instead of inventing a scheduler (honors the reconciler's Decision-15 no-new-privilege invariant), which lowers R3 implementation risk; orchestrator/gateway_client/_pr.py already carries draft plumbing (:42,:152). No regression: slice-1's ACKed two-layer runtime-resolver design (my R1) and slices 2/3/4/6 (R2/R4/R5/R6/R7) are untouched by this delta. No blocking issues remain.", + "metadata": { + "payload": { + "artifact_references": [ + ".egg-state/drafts/3393-plan.md" + ], + "reason": "ACK v3 (7fb31c8a5). The v2\u2192v3 delta is confined to slice-5 (cq-1 merge-sequencing hold) and pins its failure semantics in response to reviewer_plan's R3 NACK \u2014 this is precisely the R3 gap I raised in my original risk assessment (unspecified merge-poll terminal/failure states), so v3 strengthens my own finding. All three of my R3 mitigations are now in the plan verbatim: (1) MERGE DETECTION keys off the PR merged boolean / `mergedAt` (`gh pr view --json state,mergedAt`), NOT head-SHA equality \u2014 the plan explicitly notes a squash/rebase merge yields a merge-commit SHA \u2260 PR head so SHA-equality would misfire; (2) CLOSED-UNMERGED terminal (state=CLOSED, mergedAt=null) does NOT auto-ready and escalates to a HITL hold, distinct from Tier-B; (3) the poll is BOUNDED \u2014 a never-merging upstream exceeding the bound escalates to the same HITL hold rather than leaving the PR draft indefinitely. TASK-5-3 tests cover the happy path plus BOTH failure terminals AND a squash-merge SHA\u2260head case. Implementation anchors verified live: `gh pr ready` at gateway/github_client.py:124 (the new mark_pr_ready verb wraps it); orchestrator/stacked_pr_reconciler.py exists and runs on a fixed 30s cadence via reconcile_once \u2014 extending it for the bounded merge-poll reuses proven machinery instead of inventing a scheduler (honors the reconciler's Decision-15 no-new-privilege invariant), which lowers R3 implementation risk; orchestrator/gateway_client/_pr.py already carries draft plumbing (:42,:152). No regression: slice-1's ACKed two-layer runtime-resolver design (my R1) and slices 2/3/4/6 (R2/R4/R5/R6/R7) are untouched by this delta. No blocking issues remain.", + "ack_version": 3 + }, + "version": 3 + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:25:07.149536+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "c3dfe4ce-e968-4d", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "orchestrator", + "to_role": "task_planner", + "message_type": "STATUS", + "subject": "Ready to confirm \u2014 all confirm preconditions satisfied", + "body": "Your proposal (version 3) is ready to confirm \u2014 all blocking reviews are clear and global confirm preconditions are met. Run `egg-orch consensus confirmed` to confirm.", + "metadata": { + "ready_to_confirm": true, + "version": 3 + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:25:07.151643+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "2c2a9210-36b8-47", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "task_planner", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "CONSENSUS_CONFIRMED", + "subject": "Consensus confirmed by task_planner", + "body": "orchestrator-side confirm (#3064 event loop)", + "metadata": {}, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:25:09.608740+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "b777980b-80b2-46", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "risk_analyst", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "CONSENSUS_CONFIRMED", + "subject": "Consensus confirmed by risk_analyst", + "body": "orchestrator-side confirm (#3064 event loop)", + "metadata": {}, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:25:09.610417+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "bfbb2525-5d97-44", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "simplifier", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "CONSENSUS_CONFIRMED", + "subject": "Consensus confirmed by simplifier", + "body": "orchestrator-side confirm (#3064 event loop)", + "metadata": {}, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:25:09.610956+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + }, + { + "id": "744afb1f-b005-4a", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "reviewer_plan", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "CONSENSUS_CONFIRMED", + "subject": "Consensus confirmed by reviewer_plan", + "body": "orchestrator-side confirm (#3064 event loop)", + "metadata": {}, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:25:09.611404+00:00", + "phase": "plan" + } +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/.egg-state/brc-history/3393-plan.md b/.egg-state/brc-history/3393-plan.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..d9646ac568 --- /dev/null +++ b/.egg-state/brc-history/3393-plan.md @@ -0,0 +1,2270 @@ +# BRC Consensus History — plan phase + +Generated: 2026-07-02T00:25:09Z +Pipeline: issue-3393 + +### [2026-07-02T00:03:40Z] overseer (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: f75c6179-4d16-47 +phase: plan +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:03:41Z] architect (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +one-shot event handler action=propose (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: 6956406a-45be-40 +phase: plan +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:03:43Z] task_planner (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +one-shot event handler action=propose (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: 52c08d7d-e4a9-46 +phase: plan +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:03:44Z] risk_analyst (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +one-shot event handler action=propose (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: 2dc6e19c-0ca7-40 +phase: plan +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:03:45Z] simplifier (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +one-shot event handler action=propose (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: c1294060-2928-49 +phase: plan +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:03:49Z] architect (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: 80d80435-ad94-43 +phase: plan +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:03:50Z] risk_analyst (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: b99c0502-9158-44 +phase: plan +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:03:50Z] task_planner (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: 83fadffd-8303-48 +phase: plan +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:03:54Z] simplifier (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: a7c064fb-ed4a-49 +phase: plan +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:04:38Z] simplifier (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WAITING_ON_ROLE + +Plan phase: simplifier producer artifact plan-draft-human depends on task_planner's plan-draft CONSENSUS_PROPOSE; 3393-plan.md absent, task_planner WORKING. Exiting one-shot; re-spawn me on their propose. + +````yaml +id: 6c6882f8-7762-4d +phase: plan +metadata: + state: WAITING_ON_ROLE + waiting_on: task_planner +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:04:53Z] simplifier (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +context-measure occ=180651 util=0.18 cache_hit=0.99 decision=below_threshold + +````yaml +id: 3bdd6ba9-72a0-43 +phase: plan +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:05:05Z] simplifier (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +one-shot event handler action=propose (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: 5a2a3ff7-15f8-41 +phase: plan +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:05:11Z] simplifier (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: c196b688-fe48-47 +phase: plan +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:05:51Z] architect (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: d2a56e48-0d6a-47 +phase: plan +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:05:59Z] risk_analyst (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: 22d16047-aa55-4f +phase: plan +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:06:08Z] simplifier (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WAITING_ON_ROLE + +Plan event #13: still blocked on task_planner's plan-draft proposal (3393-plan.md absent, zero plan proposes). Recreated + committed plan-phase memory entry lost to the phase-gate worktree reseed. Exiting one-shot. + +````yaml +id: bf9ea722-3665-4a +phase: plan +metadata: + state: WAITING_ON_ROLE + waiting_on: task_planner +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:06:17Z] simplifier (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +context-measure occ=188374 util=0.19 cache_hit=1.00 decision=below_threshold + +````yaml +id: 2665148c-91bd-43 +phase: plan +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:06:23Z] task_planner (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: e8187bb7-7cc8-4f +phase: plan +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:06:24Z] simplifier (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +one-shot event handler action=propose (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: cb2bfbac-473d-47 +phase: plan +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:06:30Z] simplifier (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: 07c4235f-8894-45 +phase: plan +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:07:14Z] overseer (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: 22e3127f-fde2-4e +phase: plan +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:07:31Z] simplifier (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WAITING_ON_ROLE + +Plan event #14: still blocked on task_planner plan-draft (zero plan proposes, no 3393-plan.md). MEMORY-RECOVERY BREADCRUMB for future spawns: worktree reseeds orphan local commits; latest memory snapshot commit = 1234b04b9 (prior orphan 11ad798ef); if brc-memory file lacks plan-phase entries, restore via git checkout 1234b04b9 -- .egg-state/agent-outputs/simplifier/brc-memory-issue-3393.md + +````yaml +id: 47797e41-d20d-40 +phase: plan +metadata: + state: WAITING_ON_ROLE + waiting_on: task_planner +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:07:42Z] simplifier (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +context-measure occ=199125 util=0.20 cache_hit=0.99 decision=below_threshold + +````yaml +id: ee539c99-891c-4e +phase: plan +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:07:49Z] simplifier (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +one-shot event handler action=propose (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: 38144c98-c2b6-4a +phase: plan +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:07:57Z] simplifier (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: 5eb7384b-cf35-4f +phase: plan +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:08:20Z] risk_analyst (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: 356d71d5-d039-4c +phase: plan +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:08:38Z] simplifier (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WAITING_ON_ROLE + +Plan event #15: still blocked on task_planner plan-draft. MEMORY BREADCRUMB: latest snapshot commit = 701b908ab (restore: git checkout 701b908ab -- .egg-state/agent-outputs/simplifier/brc-memory-issue-3393.md). + +````yaml +id: ab6fccdd-f958-46 +phase: plan +metadata: + state: WAITING_ON_ROLE + waiting_on: task_planner +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:08:46Z] simplifier (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +context-measure occ=208165 util=0.21 cache_hit=1.00 decision=below_threshold + +````yaml +id: 97b34905-9b3e-4c +phase: plan +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:08:47Z] risk_analyst (CONSENSUS_PROPOSE): Proposal from risk_analyst + +Risk assessment for multi-repo pipelines (#3393), plan phase. Verdict PROCEED_WITH_MITIGATIONS (MEDIUM-HIGH), 7 risks grounded against live tree f085265b7. Load-bearing findings: R1 (HIGH/CERTAIN) — the Contract model carries NO repo field, so the mandated 'Slice.repo absent => primary' migration has no context to resolve 'primary' at load time; the schema change is two fields (Contract repo dimension + Slice.repo), not one. R2 (HIGH/LIKELY) — 'stop the repos[0] collapse' is not a pure deletion: EGG_PIPELINE_REPO is hard-required by the overseer entrypoint (raises without it), so removal must preserve a primary scalar. R3 (MED-HIGH) — cq-1 auto-release merge-poll is net-new orchestration with unspecified terminal/failure states (closed-unmerged, squash-merge SHA). R4 visibility/auth uniformity must fail-closed at submission entry. R5 owner/repo worktree re-key fan-out. R6 per-repo conventions in test gate. R7 naming/status surfaces. + +````yaml +id: 9ba8ce37-db8c-47 +phase: plan +metadata: + payload: + summary: "Risk assessment for multi-repo pipelines (#3393), plan phase. Verdict\ + \ PROCEED_WITH_MITIGATIONS (MEDIUM-HIGH), 7 risks grounded against live tree\ + \ f085265b7. Load-bearing findings: R1 (HIGH/CERTAIN) \u2014 the Contract model\ + \ carries NO repo field, so the mandated 'Slice.repo absent => primary' migration\ + \ has no context to resolve 'primary' at load time; the schema change is two\ + \ fields (Contract repo dimension + Slice.repo), not one. R2 (HIGH/LIKELY) \u2014\ + \ 'stop the repos[0] collapse' is not a pure deletion: EGG_PIPELINE_REPO is\ + \ hard-required by the overseer entrypoint (raises without it), so removal must\ + \ preserve a primary scalar. R3 (MED-HIGH) \u2014 cq-1 auto-release merge-poll\ + \ is net-new orchestration with unspecified terminal/failure states (closed-unmerged,\ + \ squash-merge SHA). R4 visibility/auth uniformity must fail-closed at submission\ + \ entry. R5 owner/repo worktree re-key fan-out. R6 per-repo conventions in test\ + \ gate. R7 naming/status surfaces." + attestation: {} + artifacts: + - .egg-state/agent-outputs/3393-risk_analyst-output.json + risk_considered: 'Assessed operator-ratified v1 scope only; reviewer follow-up + will NACK architect/task_planner plan if R1/R2/R3 unaddressed. Two areas flagged + for human review (R3 poll failure semantics, R5 prohibitive re-key fan-out => + new HITL per ruling #6).' + commit_sha: 40b701184 + files_changed: + - .egg-state/agent-outputs/3393-risk_analyst-output.json + tests_run: [] + tasks_satisfied: [] + no_changes_needed: false + no_changes_reason: '' + version: 1 + commit_sha: 40b701184 +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:08:54Z] simplifier (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +one-shot event handler action=propose (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: adca0423-a07e-4e +phase: plan +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:08:55Z] reviewer_plan (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +one-shot event handler action=ack (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: b119eac1-9700-40 +phase: plan +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:09:00Z] simplifier (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: 8974e092-33ab-42 +phase: plan +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:09:02Z] reviewer_plan (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: c508964e-f74f-46 +phase: plan +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:09:31Z] risk_analyst (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +context-measure occ=105150 util=0.11 cache_hit=0.98 decision=no_warm_session + +````yaml +id: b2f55ae6-1c4c-44 +phase: plan +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:09:38Z] simplifier (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WAITING_ON_ROLE + +Plan event #16: risk_analyst proposed (v1, 40b701184) — noted R1/R2/R3 as context for my future plan-human rendering. Still blocked on task_planner plan-draft for my producer artifact. MEMORY BREADCRUMB: latest snapshot = af1874494 (restore: git checkout af1874494 -- .egg-state/agent-outputs/simplifier/brc-memory-issue-3393.md). + +````yaml +id: 9a8ecb63-fd6f-49 +phase: plan +metadata: + state: WAITING_ON_ROLE + waiting_on: task_planner +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:09:40Z] reviewer_plan → risk_analyst (CONSENSUS_ACK): ACK from reviewer_plan for risk_analyst + +Plan-phase risk assessment is well-grounded and aligned with the operator-ratified v1 scope. Independently re-verified the two load-bearing anchors against the live tree: R1 (Contract/Slice carry no repo field — grep 'repo' in shared/egg_contracts/models.py hits only docstrings at :351,:435, and Slice class has none) and R2 (EGG_PIPELINE_REPO hard-raises OSError for the overseer role at sandbox/entrypoint/_environment.py:46) — both TRUE. Recommendation PROCEED_WITH_MITIGATIONS (MEDIUM-HIGH) is sound; the 7 risks are actionable and correctly scoped. The assessment also states the correct reviewer follow-up obligation (NACK the architect/task_planner plan if R1/R2/R3 are unaddressed), which reviewer_plan will carry forward. + +````yaml +id: 6ddedf54-d418-4e +phase: plan +metadata: + payload: + artifact_references: + - .egg-state/agent-outputs/3393-risk_analyst-output.json + reason: "Plan-phase risk assessment is well-grounded and aligned with the operator-ratified\ + \ v1 scope. Independently re-verified the two load-bearing anchors against the\ + \ live tree: R1 (Contract/Slice carry no repo field \u2014 grep 'repo' in shared/egg_contracts/models.py\ + \ hits only docstrings at :351,:435, and Slice class has none) and R2 (EGG_PIPELINE_REPO\ + \ hard-raises OSError for the overseer role at sandbox/entrypoint/_environment.py:46)\ + \ \u2014 both TRUE. Recommendation PROCEED_WITH_MITIGATIONS (MEDIUM-HIGH) is\ + \ sound; the 7 risks are actionable and correctly scoped. The assessment also\ + \ states the correct reviewer follow-up obligation (NACK the architect/task_planner\ + \ plan if R1/R2/R3 are unaddressed), which reviewer_plan will carry forward." + ack_version: 1 + version: 1 +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:09:47Z] reviewer_plan (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +context-measure occ=62657 util=0.06 cache_hit=0.97 decision=no_warm_session + +````yaml +id: ed6934da-886a-4b +phase: plan +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:09:48Z] simplifier (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +context-measure occ=218317 util=0.22 cache_hit=1.00 decision=below_threshold + +````yaml +id: 61b2242b-edaf-44 +phase: plan +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:09:59Z] simplifier (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +one-shot event handler action=propose (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: 27c547a4-1984-41 +phase: plan +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:10:07Z] simplifier (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: d2085e6b-2d67-45 +phase: plan +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:10:23Z] task_planner (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: efe7dd55-23af-40 +phase: plan +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:10:35Z] overseer (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: b1ec2993-d956-49 +phase: plan +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:10:46Z] simplifier (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WAITING_ON_ROLE + +Plan event #17: still blocked on task_planner plan-draft (no propose, no 3393-plan.md). MEMORY BREADCRUMB: latest snapshot = c78e0704e (restore: git checkout c78e0704e -- .egg-state/agent-outputs/simplifier/brc-memory-issue-3393.md). + +````yaml +id: 287c856c-bd38-4a +phase: plan +metadata: + state: WAITING_ON_ROLE + waiting_on: task_planner +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:10:52Z] simplifier (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +context-measure occ=226663 util=0.23 cache_hit=1.00 decision=below_threshold + +````yaml +id: c2592366-ef42-4f +phase: plan +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:11:04Z] simplifier (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +one-shot event handler action=propose (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: a21c5d6e-6367-43 +phase: plan +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:11:11Z] simplifier (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: d6033e3e-77fc-4b +phase: plan +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:11:25Z] simplifier (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WAITING_ON_ROLE + +Plan event #18 (00:11Z): unchanged — blocked on task_planner plan-draft. MEMORY BREADCRUMB (standing): snapshot = c78e0704e (restore: git checkout c78e0704e -- .egg-state/agent-outputs/simplifier/brc-memory-issue-3393.md). Skipping per-event memory churn on identical states; breadcrumb updates only when content materially changes. + +````yaml +id: ea279e19-104e-44 +phase: plan +metadata: + state: WAITING_ON_ROLE + waiting_on: task_planner +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:11:33Z] simplifier (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +context-measure occ=230507 util=0.23 cache_hit=1.00 decision=below_threshold + +````yaml +id: 7f278b79-a1d7-43 +phase: plan +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:11:41Z] simplifier (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +one-shot event handler action=propose (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: d99c306b-1f44-44 +phase: plan +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:11:48Z] simplifier (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: 5f0aed5f-13af-46 +phase: plan +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:11:55Z] simplifier (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WAITING_ON_ROLE + +Plan event #19 (00:11:49Z): unchanged — blocked on task_planner plan-draft. Standing memory breadcrumb: c78e0704e. + +````yaml +id: ee0a4fa6-c087-43 +phase: plan +metadata: + state: WAITING_ON_ROLE + waiting_on: task_planner +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:12:01Z] simplifier (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +context-measure occ=234084 util=0.23 cache_hit=1.00 decision=below_threshold + +````yaml +id: 0774849d-9132-49 +phase: plan +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:12:08Z] architect (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: d2b58313-b46e-45 +phase: plan +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:12:08Z] simplifier (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +one-shot event handler action=propose (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: 17cfd979-c9c9-45 +phase: plan +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:12:14Z] simplifier (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: 0532f60e-a267-4f +phase: plan +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:12:21Z] simplifier (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WAITING_ON_ROLE + +Plan event #20 (00:12:15Z): unchanged — blocked on task_planner plan-draft. Standing memory breadcrumb: c78e0704e. + +````yaml +id: d58b434a-e20f-46 +phase: plan +metadata: + state: WAITING_ON_ROLE + waiting_on: task_planner +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:12:27Z] simplifier (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +context-measure occ=237337 util=0.24 cache_hit=1.00 decision=below_threshold + +````yaml +id: 5334ea8a-7b1a-4a +phase: plan +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:12:35Z] task_planner (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: e0a21e6d-44fa-48 +phase: plan +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:12:38Z] simplifier (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +one-shot event handler action=propose (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: 8470c0ac-30ba-45 +phase: plan +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:12:45Z] simplifier (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: 12682bb4-9d5c-4f +phase: plan +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:13:02Z] task_planner (CONSENSUS_PROPOSE): Proposal from task_planner + +Plan for #3393 multi-repo pipelines: a single serialized 6-slice linear chain (slice-1→…→slice-6, 18 tasks) delivering v1 arbitrary-N-repo support, slice↔repo 1:1, uniform auth+visibility. Chain is linear because 5 slices edit orchestrator/routes/pipelines.py and slices 1&3 both edit orchestrator/models.py (#3046 overlap ⇒ one dependency chain). slice-1 (root): repo dimension in the persisted schema — Slice.repo + Pipeline repo-list + schemaVersion 1.3→1.4 migration (absent⇒primary, singleton⇒1-elem list), the load-bearing gap; nothing writes Slice.repo until it lands. slice-2: list-shaped submit_task/POST pipelines + uniform-visibility & uniform-auth-mode rejection (same-name sets NOT rejected per ruling #6). slice-3: remove all three enumerated repos[0] collapse sites (_spawn.py:452/464/523, commit_authorship_store.py:932-933, pipelines.py:732) + owner/repo re-key of the worktree map + ratchet/grep-sweep (sdlc_hitl.py:82 allowlisted). slice-4: slice-PR routing to slice.repo + lazy-per-repo work-branch/context-PR with sibling cross-refs. slice-5: cq-1 two-tier merge-sequencing hold — Tier A automated draft→ready on upstream PR merge (no release/version auto-detection), Tier B HITL for beyond-merge-state; deps gate merge-readiness not development. slice-6: per-repo test-gate/reviewer-diff scoping + per-repo conventions (cwd=slice repo worktree) + docs. All 8 refine ACs mapped, all 6 operator rulings + HITL cq-1 honored, N=1 regression baseline asserted in every tester task. Validated locally: parse_plan success, preflight OK, forest/overlap/role-alignment validators all clean. + +````yaml +id: 35ae9a63-a672-4f +phase: plan +metadata: + payload: + summary: "Plan for #3393 multi-repo pipelines: a single serialized 6-slice linear\ + \ chain (slice-1\u2192\u2026\u2192slice-6, 18 tasks) delivering v1 arbitrary-N-repo\ + \ support, slice\u2194repo 1:1, uniform auth+visibility. Chain is linear because\ + \ 5 slices edit orchestrator/routes/pipelines.py and slices 1&3 both edit orchestrator/models.py\ + \ (#3046 overlap \u21D2 one dependency chain). slice-1 (root): repo dimension\ + \ in the persisted schema \u2014 Slice.repo + Pipeline repo-list + schemaVersion\ + \ 1.3\u21921.4 migration (absent\u21D2primary, singleton\u21D21-elem list),\ + \ the load-bearing gap; nothing writes Slice.repo until it lands. slice-2: list-shaped\ + \ submit_task/POST pipelines + uniform-visibility & uniform-auth-mode rejection\ + \ (same-name sets NOT rejected per ruling #6). slice-3: remove all three enumerated\ + \ repos[0] collapse sites (_spawn.py:452/464/523, commit_authorship_store.py:932-933,\ + \ pipelines.py:732) + owner/repo re-key of the worktree map + ratchet/grep-sweep\ + \ (sdlc_hitl.py:82 allowlisted). slice-4: slice-PR routing to slice.repo + lazy-per-repo\ + \ work-branch/context-PR with sibling cross-refs. slice-5: cq-1 two-tier merge-sequencing\ + \ hold \u2014 Tier A automated draft\u2192ready on upstream PR merge (no release/version\ + \ auto-detection), Tier B HITL for beyond-merge-state; deps gate merge-readiness\ + \ not development. slice-6: per-repo test-gate/reviewer-diff scoping + per-repo\ + \ conventions (cwd=slice repo worktree) + docs. All 8 refine ACs mapped, all\ + \ 6 operator rulings + HITL cq-1 honored, N=1 regression baseline asserted in\ + \ every tester task. Validated locally: parse_plan success, preflight OK, forest/overlap/role-alignment\ + \ validators all clean." + attestation: {} + artifacts: + - .egg-state/drafts/3393-plan.md + risk_considered: "Migration must land before any producer writes Slice.repo \u2014\ + \ enforced by chain-root ordering. pipelines.py is the shared mega-file \u2014\ + \ linear chain deliberate, do not re-parallelize (would trip #3046). Draft\u2192\ + ready polling is new but bounded (mechanical GitHub signal, NOT release detection,\ + \ which cq-1 forbids). Owner/repo re-key fan-out: if prohibitive at implement\ + \ time, surface a NEW HITL, never silent fallback to reject-same-name (ruling\ + \ #6). orchestrator/models.py primary_repo property is the intentional primary\ + \ accessor, explicitly distinct from the 3 removed collapse sites." + commit_sha: d0673230d428c450eda0f7e347713b97646cae5b + files_changed: + - .egg-state/drafts/3393-plan.md + - .egg-state/agent-outputs/task_planner/brc-memory-issue-3393.md + tests_run: [] + tasks_satisfied: + - task-1-1 + - task-1-2 + - task-1-3 + - task-2-1 + - task-2-2 + - task-2-3 + - task-3-1 + - task-3-2 + - task-3-3 + - task-4-1 + - task-4-2 + - task-4-3 + - task-5-1 + - task-5-2 + - task-5-3 + - task-6-1 + - task-6-2 + - task-6-3 + no_changes_needed: false + no_changes_reason: '' + version: 1 + commit_sha: d0673230d428c450eda0f7e347713b97646cae5b +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:13:07Z] risk_analyst (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +one-shot event handler action=ack (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: 87deacb2-b750-4b +phase: plan +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:13:08Z] simplifier (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WAITING_ON_ROLE + +Plan event #21 (00:12:46Z): unchanged — blocked on task_planner plan-draft; liveness verified (their heartbeat 00:12:35Z, WORKING). Standing memory breadcrumb: c78e0704e. + +````yaml +id: c9cf0111-f079-4e +phase: plan +metadata: + state: WAITING_ON_ROLE + waiting_on: task_planner +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:13:08Z] reviewer_plan (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +one-shot event handler action=ack (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: e2018739-8d71-42 +phase: plan +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:13:14Z] task_planner (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +context-measure occ=138594 util=0.14 cache_hit=0.99 decision=no_warm_session + +````yaml +id: b75a715d-0fee-4f +phase: plan +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:13:15Z] risk_analyst (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: 1490392b-cd3a-48 +phase: plan +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:13:16Z] reviewer_plan (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: 8b7b7e63-91cc-4f +phase: plan +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:13:18Z] simplifier (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +context-measure occ=242475 util=0.24 cache_hit=1.00 decision=below_threshold + +````yaml +id: f60cc861-2540-44 +phase: plan +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:13:25Z] simplifier (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +one-shot event handler action=propose (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: c7397d37-aa61-48 +phase: plan +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:13:31Z] simplifier (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: 544ceecb-0e79-4e +phase: plan +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:13:53Z] overseer (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: fc287d94-028f-4d +phase: plan +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:13:54Z] architect (CONSENSUS_PROPOSE): Proposal from architect + +Architect plan proposal for #3393 multi-repo pipelines — data-model root (Pipeline.repos + Slice.repo + schema 1.3->1.4), repos[0] de-collapse with owner/repo-keyed worktree map, per-repo lazy branch/context-PR + slice-PR routing, cq-1 two-tier merge gate (auto draft->ready + HITL external-condition), uniform visibility/auth validation. Recommends a 9-slice DAG with S1 root, S2 parallel parser, and a serialized pipelines.py spine. + +````yaml +id: f02c48bd-850c-49 +phase: plan +metadata: + payload: + summary: "Architect plan proposal for #3393 multi-repo pipelines \u2014 data-model\ + \ root (Pipeline.repos + Slice.repo + schema 1.3->1.4), repos[0] de-collapse\ + \ with owner/repo-keyed worktree map, per-repo lazy branch/context-PR + slice-PR\ + \ routing, cq-1 two-tier merge gate (auto draft->ready + HITL external-condition),\ + \ uniform visibility/auth validation. Recommends a 9-slice DAG with S1 root,\ + \ S2 parallel parser, and a serialized pipelines.py spine." + attestation: {} + artifacts: + - .egg-state/agent-outputs/3393-architect-output.json + - .egg-state/agent-outputs/3393-architect-slices.yaml + risk_considered: 'Contract migration read across all phases (S1 root; additive/idempotent/guarded + after-stamp; read-site None->primary resolver; round-trip+N=1 tests). repos[0] + de-collapse misses a site (grep sweep + owner/repo re-key per ruling #6). Merge-gate + new machinery / stuck poll (bounded idempotent poll, HITL fallthrough, status + surfacing). pipelines.py serial spine (honest under #3046; planner may merge/split). + Mixed-visibility leak (hard submission gate). Per-repo conventions not applied + (S7 explicit). Cross-repo edge mistaken for same-repo stack (branch the two + paths explicitly).' + commit_sha: aeb3528cdb401a2e21b62bcd64f1df1c119da165 + files_changed: + - .egg-state/agent-outputs/3393-architect-output.json + - .egg-state/agent-outputs/3393-architect-slices.yaml + tests_run: [] + tasks_satisfied: [] + no_changes_needed: false + no_changes_reason: '' + version: 1 + commit_sha: aeb3528cdb401a2e21b62bcd64f1df1c119da165 +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:13:58Z] risk_analyst (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +one-shot event handler action=ack (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: b373a72c-760d-4f +phase: plan +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:13:59Z] reviewer_plan (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +one-shot event handler action=ack (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: 33e5ea3d-b887-45 +phase: plan +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:14:06Z] reviewer_plan (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: e1b9813e-dea8-46 +phase: plan +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:14:10Z] risk_analyst (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: 461a5793-ad76-42 +phase: plan +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:14:24Z] architect (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: 6e9f9d34-9cb2-49 +phase: plan +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:14:38Z] architect (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +context-measure occ=178079 util=0.18 cache_hit=0.99 decision=no_warm_session + +````yaml +id: e3c0b989-04a9-48 +phase: plan +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:15:41Z] simplifier (CONSENSUS_PROPOSE): Proposal from simplifier + +Simplifier plan-draft-human v1 for issue #3393 — plain-language rendering of task_planner v1 (d0673230d). Covers: why the six steps run in a fixed order (five share one large source file; foundation-first value ordering); the six steps in operator terms (1 saved-format repo dimension with automatic upgrade of old plans, 2 list submission with mixed-visibility/mixed-auth rejection and same-name-allowed per ruling #6, 3 the three first-repo-only fixes plus the owner/repo-keyed folder map and a watchdog test, 4 per-repo PR routing with lazy work-branch/umbrella-PR per ruling #1, 5 the cq-1 two-tier hold — auto draft→ready on upstream merge, human-released holds for beyond-merge conditions, dependencies never delay the work itself, 6 per-repo test/review/house-rules scoping per rulings #3/#5); verification with the explicit N=1 no-behavior-change guarantee; and the after-landing story (lazy migration, no manual steps, deferred items filed as follow-up). All five binding operator rulings and the cq-1 resolution are rendered with their operator-made constraints intact. (Rebased onto origin work-branch tip after a non-fast-forward reject; commit now 291fc5c7f.) + +````yaml +id: 268fdb5c-4e21-4e +phase: plan +metadata: + payload: + summary: "Simplifier plan-draft-human v1 for issue #3393 \u2014 plain-language\ + \ rendering of task_planner v1 (d0673230d). Covers: why the six steps run in\ + \ a fixed order (five share one large source file; foundation-first value ordering);\ + \ the six steps in operator terms (1 saved-format repo dimension with automatic\ + \ upgrade of old plans, 2 list submission with mixed-visibility/mixed-auth rejection\ + \ and same-name-allowed per ruling #6, 3 the three first-repo-only fixes plus\ + \ the owner/repo-keyed folder map and a watchdog test, 4 per-repo PR routing\ + \ with lazy work-branch/umbrella-PR per ruling #1, 5 the cq-1 two-tier hold\ + \ \u2014 auto draft\u2192ready on upstream merge, human-released holds for beyond-merge\ + \ conditions, dependencies never delay the work itself, 6 per-repo test/review/house-rules\ + \ scoping per rulings #3/#5); verification with the explicit N=1 no-behavior-change\ + \ guarantee; and the after-landing story (lazy migration, no manual steps, deferred\ + \ items filed as follow-up). All five binding operator rulings and the cq-1\ + \ resolution are rendered with their operator-made constraints intact. (Rebased\ + \ onto origin work-branch tip after a non-fast-forward reject; commit now 291fc5c7f.)" + attestation: {} + artifacts: + - .egg-state/drafts/3393-plan-human.md + risk_considered: "Faithfulness: every claim traced to the plan text; no invented\ + \ commitments (e.g. did not promise poll failure-state handling the plan does\ + \ not specify). Observation passed to reviewer_plan rather than silently absorbed:\ + \ the plan's Tier-A merge-poll does not spell out terminal/failure semantics\ + \ (risk_analyst R3 \u2014 upstream PR closed-unmerged, squash-merge SHA identification);\ + \ my summary stays silent on those rather than papering over them. Rebase risk:\ + \ replayed cleanly onto the architect/task_planner tip with no conflicts; my\ + \ artifact is untouched by their commits." + commit_sha: 291fc5c7f + files_changed: + - .egg-state/drafts/3393-plan-human.md + - .egg-state/agent-outputs/simplifier/brc-memory-issue-3393.md + tests_run: [] + tasks_satisfied: [] + no_changes_needed: false + no_changes_reason: '' + version: 1 + commit_sha: 291fc5c7f +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:15:41Z] simplifier (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: 7ee4e59c-f9ce-45 +phase: plan +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:15:46Z] reviewer_plan (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +one-shot event handler action=ack (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: d1a88f20-8f64-45 +phase: plan +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:15:48Z] simplifier (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: PROPOSED + +simplifier plan-draft-human v1 proposed (commit 291fc5c7f, rebased onto work-branch tip after non-fast-forward). Renders task_planner v1 d0673230d with all binding rulings intact; R3 poll-failure-state gap flagged to reviewer_plan in risk_considered. MEMORY BREADCRUMB: snapshot = 291fc5c7f (contains full event log through #22). + +````yaml +id: b6ae0e71-74ca-46 +phase: plan +metadata: + state: PROPOSED +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:16:00Z] simplifier (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +context-measure occ=274602 util=0.27 cache_hit=1.00 decision=below_threshold + +````yaml +id: 7374705c-f310-43 +phase: plan +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:16:11Z] risk_analyst → architect (CONSENSUS_ACK): ACK from risk_analyst for architect + +ACK. The architecture resolves all seven risks in my assessment (40b701184), including my three NACK-triggers. R1 (Contract has no repo dimension): the architect independently reached the same conclusion I flagged — "the Contract model cannot inject the pipeline repo (it carries no repo field), so None->primary is a runtime resolver, not a model migration" — and adds resolve_slice_repo(slice, pipeline) at the orchestrator layer plus a pure additive after-stamp schemaVersion 1.3->1.4 migration. Correct and load-bearing. R2 (EGG_PIPELINE_REPO is a hard-required overseer consumer): layer_4 preserves the primary scalar (slice agents get EGG_PIPELINE_REPO = slice repo; pipeline-level agents = primary; overseer_repo = primary_repo) and adds the full owner/repo map ALONGSIDE — not a naive deletion. R3 (merge-poll terminal states): layer_6 polls upstream merge via gh pr view --json state,mergedAt (mergedAt, not head-SHA equality — squash/rebase-safe) and falls through to the HITL hold rather than hanging. R4 uniformity validators are a hard submission gate; R5 owner/repo re-key with prohibitive-fan-out => new HITL; R6 per-repo conventions (cwd=slice repo); R7 primary-repo naming + per-repo status. Binding invariants and the N=1 regression baseline are explicit. Note for consensus: the task_planner's slice-1 migration wording diverges from this ratified resolver design (NACKed separately) — the architect's runtime-resolver approach is the correct one to implement. + +````yaml +id: c1be81a7-0f5c-41 +phase: plan +metadata: + payload: + artifact_references: + - .egg-state/agent-outputs/3393-architect-output.json + - .egg-state/agent-outputs/3393-architect-slices.yaml + reason: "ACK. The architecture resolves all seven risks in my assessment (40b701184),\ + \ including my three NACK-triggers. R1 (Contract has no repo dimension): the\ + \ architect independently reached the same conclusion I flagged \u2014 \"the\ + \ Contract model cannot inject the pipeline repo (it carries no repo field),\ + \ so None->primary is a runtime resolver, not a model migration\" \u2014 and\ + \ adds resolve_slice_repo(slice, pipeline) at the orchestrator layer plus a\ + \ pure additive after-stamp schemaVersion 1.3->1.4 migration. Correct and load-bearing.\ + \ R2 (EGG_PIPELINE_REPO is a hard-required overseer consumer): layer_4 preserves\ + \ the primary scalar (slice agents get EGG_PIPELINE_REPO = slice repo; pipeline-level\ + \ agents = primary; overseer_repo = primary_repo) and adds the full owner/repo\ + \ map ALONGSIDE \u2014 not a naive deletion. R3 (merge-poll terminal states):\ + \ layer_6 polls upstream merge via gh pr view --json state,mergedAt (mergedAt,\ + \ not head-SHA equality \u2014 squash/rebase-safe) and falls through to the\ + \ HITL hold rather than hanging. R4 uniformity validators are a hard submission\ + \ gate; R5 owner/repo re-key with prohibitive-fan-out => new HITL; R6 per-repo\ + \ conventions (cwd=slice repo); R7 primary-repo naming + per-repo status. Binding\ + \ invariants and the N=1 regression baseline are explicit. Note for consensus:\ + \ the task_planner's slice-1 migration wording diverges from this ratified resolver\ + \ design (NACKed separately) \u2014 the architect's runtime-resolver approach\ + \ is the correct one to implement." + ack_version: 1 + version: 1 +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:16:11Z] risk_analyst (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: ef40d177-0eb9-4c +phase: plan +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:16:14Z] reviewer_plan (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: a5503f85-cda5-40 +phase: plan +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:16:15Z] risk_analyst (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +one-shot event handler action=ack (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: 15e9ac63-349d-4e +phase: plan +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:16:24Z] risk_analyst → task_planner (CONSENSUS_NACK): NACK from risk_analyst for task_planner + +NACK on slice-1 (TASK-1-1) — the migration mechanism is architecturally impossible and contradicts the ratified architect design (risk R1, my highest-severity item). TASK-1-1 instructs the coder to make the CONTRACT-MODEL migration validator in shared/egg_contracts/models.py "populate each slice's absent `repo` with the pipeline's primary repo" and "normalize any legacy singleton pipeline repo into the one-element list." Neither is possible from inside the contract model: a legacy schemaVersion-1.3 contract's JSON carries NO repo anywhere (the Contract model has no repo field — verified: models.py mentions 'repo' only in field docstrings at :351/:435), and the primary repo lives on the SEPARATELY-loaded orchestrator Pipeline (orchestrator/models.py:1131), which the contract migration validator cannot see. So the model validator has nothing to read to fill Slice.repo, and cannot reach a "legacy singleton pipeline repo" at all. The architect (aeb3528, ACKed) explicitly resolved exactly this: "the Contract model cannot inject the pipeline repo — it carries no repo field — so None->primary is a runtime resolver, not a model migration," implemented as resolve_slice_repo(slice, pipeline) at the ORCHESTRATOR layer, with the contract migration being a PURE ADDITIVE after-stamp (schemaVersion 1.3->1.4; Slice.repo stays None on legacy load; NOT filled in the validator). This is the load-bearing chain root — a broken migration cascades across refine/plan/implement and breaks the AC-1/AC-8 back-compat baseline. REQUIRED FIX: rewrite TASK-1-1 (and its acceptance + TASK-1-3 tests) to align with the architect: (1) the shared/egg_contracts/models.py migration is a pure additive schemaVersion 1.3->1.4 stamp mirroring _migrate_schema_version_to_1_3 — it does NOT populate Slice.repo and does NOT normalize a pipeline repo; (2) absent Slice.repo => primary is a RUNTIME resolver (resolve_slice_repo(slice, pipeline)) at the orchestrator layer, taking the pipeline as a second input; (3) legacy singleton Pipeline.repo -> one-element repos list is an orchestrator/models.py concern (TASK-1-2), not the contract migration; (4) make TASK-1-1(b) explicit about whether a persisted repo list lands on the Contract at all, or only on the orchestrator Pipeline. Everything else in the plan is sound and faithful: R2 is correctly handled (TASK-3-1 keeps EGG_PIPELINE_REPO populated with the primary for back-compat + adds the full owner/repo map), R3 (TASK-5-1/5-2 two-tier draft->ready poll + HITL), R4 (TASK-2-2 uniformity validators), R5 (TASK-3-2 owner/repo re-key + prohibitive-fan-out HITL), R6 (TASK-6-1 per-repo conventions), R7 (slice 6 / status) — no other blocking issue. Re-propose with slice-1 aligned to the resolver design and I ACK. + +````yaml +id: 1b8f6ebd-d9dc-45 +phase: plan +metadata: + payload: + reason: "NACK on slice-1 (TASK-1-1) \u2014 the migration mechanism is architecturally\ + \ impossible and contradicts the ratified architect design (risk R1, my highest-severity\ + \ item). TASK-1-1 instructs the coder to make the CONTRACT-MODEL migration validator\ + \ in shared/egg_contracts/models.py \"populate each slice's absent `repo` with\ + \ the pipeline's primary repo\" and \"normalize any legacy singleton pipeline\ + \ repo into the one-element list.\" Neither is possible from inside the contract\ + \ model: a legacy schemaVersion-1.3 contract's JSON carries NO repo anywhere\ + \ (the Contract model has no repo field \u2014 verified: models.py mentions\ + \ 'repo' only in field docstrings at :351/:435), and the primary repo lives\ + \ on the SEPARATELY-loaded orchestrator Pipeline (orchestrator/models.py:1131),\ + \ which the contract migration validator cannot see. So the model validator\ + \ has nothing to read to fill Slice.repo, and cannot reach a \"legacy singleton\ + \ pipeline repo\" at all. The architect (aeb3528, ACKed) explicitly resolved\ + \ exactly this: \"the Contract model cannot inject the pipeline repo \u2014\ + \ it carries no repo field \u2014 so None->primary is a runtime resolver, not\ + \ a model migration,\" implemented as resolve_slice_repo(slice, pipeline) at\ + \ the ORCHESTRATOR layer, with the contract migration being a PURE ADDITIVE\ + \ after-stamp (schemaVersion 1.3->1.4; Slice.repo stays None on legacy load;\ + \ NOT filled in the validator). This is the load-bearing chain root \u2014 a\ + \ broken migration cascades across refine/plan/implement and breaks the AC-1/AC-8\ + \ back-compat baseline. REQUIRED FIX: rewrite TASK-1-1 (and its acceptance +\ + \ TASK-1-3 tests) to align with the architect: (1) the shared/egg_contracts/models.py\ + \ migration is a pure additive schemaVersion 1.3->1.4 stamp mirroring _migrate_schema_version_to_1_3\ + \ \u2014 it does NOT populate Slice.repo and does NOT normalize a pipeline repo;\ + \ (2) absent Slice.repo => primary is a RUNTIME resolver (resolve_slice_repo(slice,\ + \ pipeline)) at the orchestrator layer, taking the pipeline as a second input;\ + \ (3) legacy singleton Pipeline.repo -> one-element repos list is an orchestrator/models.py\ + \ concern (TASK-1-2), not the contract migration; (4) make TASK-1-1(b) explicit\ + \ about whether a persisted repo list lands on the Contract at all, or only\ + \ on the orchestrator Pipeline. Everything else in the plan is sound and faithful:\ + \ R2 is correctly handled (TASK-3-1 keeps EGG_PIPELINE_REPO populated with the\ + \ primary for back-compat + adds the full owner/repo map), R3 (TASK-5-1/5-2\ + \ two-tier draft->ready poll + HITL), R4 (TASK-2-2 uniformity validators), R5\ + \ (TASK-3-2 owner/repo re-key + prohibitive-fan-out HITL), R6 (TASK-6-1 per-repo\ + \ conventions), R7 (slice 6 / status) \u2014 no other blocking issue. Re-propose\ + \ with slice-1 aligned to the resolver design and I ACK." + artifact_references: + - .egg-state/drafts/3393-plan.md + nack_version: 1 + reason: "NACK on slice-1 (TASK-1-1) \u2014 the migration mechanism is architecturally\ + \ impossible and contradicts the ratified architect design (risk R1, my highest-severity\ + \ item). TASK-1-1 instructs the coder to make the CONTRACT-MODEL migration validator\ + \ in shared/egg_contracts/models.py \"populate each slice's absent `repo` with\ + \ the pipeline's primary repo\" and \"normalize any legacy singleton pipeline\ + \ repo into the one-element list.\" Neither is possible from inside the contract\ + \ model: a legacy schemaVersion-1.3 contract's JSON carries NO repo anywhere (the\ + \ Contract model has no repo field \u2014 verified: models.py mentions 'repo'\ + \ only in field docstrings at :351/:435), and the primary repo lives on the SEPARATELY-loaded\ + \ orchestrator Pipeline (orchestrator/models.py:1131), which the contract migration\ + \ validator cannot see. So the model validator has nothing to read to fill Slice.repo,\ + \ and cannot reach a \"legacy singleton pipeline repo\" at all. The architect\ + \ (aeb3528, ACKed) explicitly resolved exactly this: \"the Contract model cannot\ + \ inject the pipeline repo \u2014 it carries no repo field \u2014 so None->primary\ + \ is a runtime resolver, not a model migration,\" implemented as resolve_slice_repo(slice,\ + \ pipeline) at the ORCHESTRATOR layer, with the contract migration being a PURE\ + \ ADDITIVE after-stamp (schemaVersion 1.3->1.4; Slice.repo stays None on legacy\ + \ load; NOT filled in the validator). This is the load-bearing chain root \u2014\ + \ a broken migration cascades across refine/plan/implement and breaks the AC-1/AC-8\ + \ back-compat baseline. REQUIRED FIX: rewrite TASK-1-1 (and its acceptance + TASK-1-3\ + \ tests) to align with the architect: (1) the shared/egg_contracts/models.py migration\ + \ is a pure additive schemaVersion 1.3->1.4 stamp mirroring _migrate_schema_version_to_1_3\ + \ \u2014 it does NOT populate Slice.repo and does NOT normalize a pipeline repo;\ + \ (2) absent Slice.repo => primary is a RUNTIME resolver (resolve_slice_repo(slice,\ + \ pipeline)) at the orchestrator layer, taking the pipeline as a second input;\ + \ (3) legacy singleton Pipeline.repo -> one-element repos list is an orchestrator/models.py\ + \ concern (TASK-1-2), not the contract migration; (4) make TASK-1-1(b) explicit\ + \ about whether a persisted repo list lands on the Contract at all, or only on\ + \ the orchestrator Pipeline. Everything else in the plan is sound and faithful:\ + \ R2 is correctly handled (TASK-3-1 keeps EGG_PIPELINE_REPO populated with the\ + \ primary for back-compat + adds the full owner/repo map), R3 (TASK-5-1/5-2 two-tier\ + \ draft->ready poll + HITL), R4 (TASK-2-2 uniformity validators), R5 (TASK-3-2\ + \ owner/repo re-key + prohibitive-fan-out HITL), R6 (TASK-6-1 per-repo conventions),\ + \ R7 (slice 6 / status) \u2014 no other blocking issue. Re-propose with slice-1\ + \ aligned to the resolver design and I ACK." + revision_count: 1 +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:16:26Z] risk_analyst (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: d59adc84-d83f-42 +phase: plan +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:16:32Z] task_planner (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +one-shot event handler action=propose (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: 8f53e76e-05d4-44 +phase: plan +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:16:33Z] reviewer_plan (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +one-shot event handler action=ack (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: e917de81-12c6-47 +phase: plan +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:16:37Z] risk_analyst (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +context-measure occ=155460 util=0.16 cache_hit=0.92 decision=below_threshold + +````yaml +id: c87e8a25-984b-46 +phase: plan +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:16:43Z] reviewer_plan (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: 66f9a3f0-99ef-49 +phase: plan +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:16:48Z] task_planner (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: d8724fa7-93ca-4f +phase: plan +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:17:07Z] overseer (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: 07e0656d-7f00-45 +phase: plan +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:17:45Z] risk_analyst (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +context-measure occ=133405 util=0.13 cache_hit=0.98 decision=below_threshold + +````yaml +id: d1050255-5d4f-47 +phase: plan +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:18:50Z] task_planner (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: 09258da6-b8c1-49 +phase: plan +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:18:53Z] reviewer_plan → architect (CONSENSUS_ACK): ACK from reviewer_plan for architect + +Architecture is well-grounded and honors the operator rulings + risk mitigations. Independently re-verified the load-bearing NEW-machinery claims against the live tree: no mark_pr_ready/ready_for_review verb exists in gateway.py or gateway_client/_pr.py (genuinely new), create_slice_pr already carries draft:bool (_pr.py:42,152), and the third repos[0] collapse (overseer_repo = pipeline_repos[0]) is real at routes/pipelines.py:732. R1 addressed (F1/layer_1: additive after-stamp schema 1.3->1.4 + runtime resolve_slice_repo resolver, correctly noting the Contract model cannot inject primary). R2 addressed (layer_4: overseer_repo=pipeline.primary_repo, EGG_PIPELINE_REPO retained, full owner/repo map exposed alongside — not instead of — the primary scalar). R3 addressed at the DESIGN level (layer_6/slice-6: merge-detection uses state+mergedAt, NOT head-SHA equality — the squash/rebase trap risk_analyst emphasized; bounded poll on the reconcile cadence; fall-through to HITL rather than hanging; own slice, flagged most-underestimated). R4/R5/R6 addressed (layers 3/4/7: submission-entry uniformity validators, owner/repo re-key per ruling #6, per-repo test-gate/diff scoping). Slice DAG is sound: S1 load-bearing root, S2 file-disjoint parallel branch, pipelines.py serial spine honestly acknowledged under #3046. Architect correctly delegates the final DAG + the concrete cq-1 external-condition declaration mechanism (arch-q1) to task_planner. + +````yaml +id: 55df4614-5958-48 +phase: plan +metadata: + payload: + artifact_references: + - .egg-state/agent-outputs/3393-architect-output.json + - .egg-state/agent-outputs/3393-architect-slices.yaml + reason: "Architecture is well-grounded and honors the operator rulings + risk\ + \ mitigations. Independently re-verified the load-bearing NEW-machinery claims\ + \ against the live tree: no mark_pr_ready/ready_for_review verb exists in gateway.py\ + \ or gateway_client/_pr.py (genuinely new), create_slice_pr already carries\ + \ draft:bool (_pr.py:42,152), and the third repos[0] collapse (overseer_repo\ + \ = pipeline_repos[0]) is real at routes/pipelines.py:732. R1 addressed (F1/layer_1:\ + \ additive after-stamp schema 1.3->1.4 + runtime resolve_slice_repo resolver,\ + \ correctly noting the Contract model cannot inject primary). R2 addressed (layer_4:\ + \ overseer_repo=pipeline.primary_repo, EGG_PIPELINE_REPO retained, full owner/repo\ + \ map exposed alongside \u2014 not instead of \u2014 the primary scalar). R3\ + \ addressed at the DESIGN level (layer_6/slice-6: merge-detection uses state+mergedAt,\ + \ NOT head-SHA equality \u2014 the squash/rebase trap risk_analyst emphasized;\ + \ bounded poll on the reconcile cadence; fall-through to HITL rather than hanging;\ + \ own slice, flagged most-underestimated). R4/R5/R6 addressed (layers 3/4/7:\ + \ submission-entry uniformity validators, owner/repo re-key per ruling #6, per-repo\ + \ test-gate/diff scoping). Slice DAG is sound: S1 load-bearing root, S2 file-disjoint\ + \ parallel branch, pipelines.py serial spine honestly acknowledged under #3046.\ + \ Architect correctly delegates the final DAG + the concrete cq-1 external-condition\ + \ declaration mechanism (arch-q1) to task_planner." + ack_version: 1 + version: 1 +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:18:53Z] orchestrator → architect (STATUS): Ready to confirm — all confirm preconditions satisfied + +Your proposal (version 1) is ready to confirm — all blocking reviews are clear and global confirm preconditions are met. Run `egg-orch consensus confirmed` to confirm. + +````yaml +id: b3590f9c-7519-4b +phase: plan +metadata: + ready_to_confirm: true + version: 1 +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:18:53Z] reviewer_plan (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: d80ef3d6-4e5e-42 +phase: plan +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:18:57Z] architect (CONSENSUS_CONFIRMED): Consensus confirmed by architect + +orchestrator-side confirm (#3064 event loop) + +````yaml +id: a6ff760f-214e-41 +phase: plan +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:18:59Z] reviewer_plan → simplifier (CONSENSUS_ACK): ACK from reviewer_plan for simplifier + +3393-plan-human.md is a faithful, accurate plain-language rendering of the 6-slice plan. Verified against the architect design + task_planner slice chain: the serial-spine rationale (five steps touch the same large file, steps 1&3 touch a second shared file) is accurate; step 1 correctly describes the additive schema bump with absent-slice-repo => primary back-compat; step 2 correctly states the two uniformity gates (visibility + auth) reject mixed sets with an error naming offending repos, and same-name repos are allowed per ruling #6; step 3 the owner/repo re-key + repos[0]-collapse removal + watchdog test; step 4 lazy-per-repo branch/context-PR with cross-referencing; step 5 the cq-1 two-tier hold (auto draft->ready on upstream merge; HITL for beyond-merge-state; development never serialized, only PR merge-readiness); step 6 per-repo test/diff/conventions. The N=1 behavior-identical regression guarantee and the deferred items (mixed auth, richer merge machinery) are correctly surfaced. No overclaims, omissions that mislead, or misrepresentations of the operator rulings. + +````yaml +id: 4b2030c0-c4d4-46 +phase: plan +metadata: + payload: + artifact_references: + - .egg-state/drafts/3393-plan-human.md + reason: '3393-plan-human.md is a faithful, accurate plain-language rendering of + the 6-slice plan. Verified against the architect design + task_planner slice + chain: the serial-spine rationale (five steps touch the same large file, steps + 1&3 touch a second shared file) is accurate; step 1 correctly describes the + additive schema bump with absent-slice-repo => primary back-compat; step 2 correctly + states the two uniformity gates (visibility + auth) reject mixed sets with an + error naming offending repos, and same-name repos are allowed per ruling #6; + step 3 the owner/repo re-key + repos[0]-collapse removal + watchdog test; step + 4 lazy-per-repo branch/context-PR with cross-referencing; step 5 the cq-1 two-tier + hold (auto draft->ready on upstream merge; HITL for beyond-merge-state; development + never serialized, only PR merge-readiness); step 6 per-repo test/diff/conventions. + The N=1 behavior-identical regression guarantee and the deferred items (mixed + auth, richer merge machinery) are correctly surfaced. No overclaims, omissions + that mislead, or misrepresentations of the operator rulings.' + ack_version: 1 + version: 1 +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:18:59Z] orchestrator → simplifier (STATUS): Ready to confirm — all confirm preconditions satisfied + +Your proposal (version 1) is ready to confirm — all blocking reviews are clear and global confirm preconditions are met. Run `egg-orch consensus confirmed` to confirm. + +````yaml +id: 6c28690f-44ca-47 +phase: plan +metadata: + ready_to_confirm: true + version: 1 +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:19:01Z] reviewer_plan (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +one-shot event handler action=ack (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: 185635b0-a34f-4a +phase: plan +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:19:04Z] simplifier (CONSENSUS_CONFIRMED): Consensus confirmed by simplifier + +orchestrator-side confirm (#3064 event loop) + +````yaml +id: af54d62d-579e-4e +phase: plan +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:19:06Z] reviewer_plan (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +context-measure occ=99541 util=0.10 cache_hit=0.93 decision=below_threshold + +````yaml +id: 726f06e2-483d-4b +phase: plan +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:19:58Z] task_planner (CONSENSUS_PROPOSE): Proposal from task_planner + +v2 — addresses risk_analyst R1 NACK on slice-1 (CONCEDED; realigned to ratified architect design aeb3528). The original TASK-1-1 wrongly instructed the coder to populate Slice.repo and normalize the pipeline repo INSIDE the shared/egg_contracts/models.py migration validator — architecturally impossible: the Contract model has no repo field and cannot see the separately-loaded orchestrator Pipeline. Realigned to the two-layer resolver design: (1) CONTRACT layer (shared/egg_contracts/models.py) — add Slice.repo:str|None and bump schemaVersion 1.3→1.4 as a PURE ADDITIVE after-stamp `_migrate_schema_version_to_1_4` mirroring `_migrate_schema_version_to_1_3` verbatim (guard =="1.3", idempotent, NO field mutation; Slice.repo stays None on legacy load); the migration does NOT fill repo and does NOT reference any pipeline; no repo list on the Contract. (2) ORCHESTRATOR layer (orchestrator/models.py) — RepoSpec + Pipeline.repos with a validator that synthesizes the list from a legacy singleton and mirrors repos[0] back for legacy readers, a primary_repo property, and the RUNTIME resolver `resolve_slice_repo(slice, pipeline) -> slice.repo or pipeline.primary_repo` where absent⇒primary is resolved. (3) TASK-1-3 tests split across both layers (contract test_models.py: additive stamp + Slice.repo stays None; orchestrator test_models.py: resolver, legacy-singleton synthesis, primary_repo, N=1). Prose Slice-1 section, AC-3 mapping, PR description bullet 1, and risk notes all updated to match. Slices 2–6 unchanged (risk_analyst confirmed R2–R7 sound). Re-validated: parse_plan success, preflight OK, forest/overlap/role-alignment all clean; new orchestrator/tests/test_models.py confirmed tester-writable. + +**Adversarial re-review** + +**Your v2 review has TWO equal-weight mandates:** + +1. **Verify named v1 blockers were addressed** — confirm the producer fixed what you NACK'd. +2. **Audit the delta since your last review (per REVIEWER-SYNC.md: `git log {last_reviewed_commit}..HEAD --not origin/{base_branch} -p` — the commits landed since the version you last verdicted, NOT the whole accumulated proposal surface) as a fresh reviewer** — ignore your v1 NACK history. Read that diff as if you'd never seen the prior version. Apply your lens (security threat-model, concurrency races, contract AC, line-by-line bugs, silent-fallback shapes — whichever your role owns) to the delta itself, not to whether your previous concerns were satisfied. **Mandate 2 is bounded to this delta** — it does NOT ask you to re-traverse the whole accumulated surface from earlier cycles; that work was amortized when you first reviewed those commits. + +Both mandates have equal weight. If (1) passes but (2) finds new issues, you NACK. ACK requires both pass. + +**The named-blockers anchor is a known trap. Every reviewer lens has a mandate-2 in its own territory** — security has newly-introduced threat surfaces, concurrency has newly-introduced races, contract has newly-introduced AC drift, code has newly-introduced line-by-line bugs. The four issues that escaped PR #2724 to the GitHub bot were all of code-lens shape (`${ANSWER}` as bare Python, deprecated `datetime.utcnow()`, non-atomic write, bare `except: pass`) — the persistent reviewer correctly answered mandate 1 ("did prior issues get fixed? yes") and skipped mandate 2 ("does this delta introduce new issues? actually yes"). The shape generalizes: whatever your lens, this delta can introduce issues your prior NACK didn't name. Watching the producer deliver a targeted fix pulls strongly toward "verify my fix-request landed → ACK." Recognize the pull and do mandate 2 anyway. + +**How to execute mandate 2:** + +- Read each new hunk as an operator who's about to copy-paste / run / integrate it. Would this code execute as written? Would these docs send a copy-paster down a working path? +- Apply every rubric pass to the new hunks. New issues outside the scope of your prior NACK are blocking; your prior NACK does not bound this re-review. +- **Fresh-reviewer simulation.** Before issuing your v2 verdict, ask: would a reviewer who has only seen this delta (the commits since your last review) with no NACK history ACK this? If you can't argue yes from that diff alone, NACK. +- **External-bot anchor.** Imagine `egg-reviewer[bot]` reads only this delta (the commits since your last review) with no NACK context. What would it flag? Anything it'd flag, you should NACK first. + +**Your v2 verdict must enumerate both halves** so mandate 2 doesn't silently disappear from the record: + +- (a) Which v1 blockers you verified-fixed (mandate 1). +- (b) What new issues you audited-and-did-not-find (mandate 2). Name the specific shapes you checked — not "reviewed thoroughly," but "checked for silent fallbacks, doc-snippet executability, API-deprecation, atomicity of file writes." If you can't enumerate (b), you haven't done mandate 2. + +**Re-reviews are cheap by design.** Your amortized context means the work is "read the delta, apply your rubric, decide" — minutes, not hours. NACK without hesitance; the orchestrator absorbs cycles. Two NACKs on the same producer where the second names new findings is the correct trajectory, not goalpost-moving. The downstream GitHub reviewer should find nothing in this delta. Anything it catches that lives in this cycle's diff is a miss attributable to this re-review. + +````yaml +id: 75a759b6-4421-4d +phase: plan +metadata: + payload: + summary: "v2 \u2014 addresses risk_analyst R1 NACK on slice-1 (CONCEDED; realigned\ + \ to ratified architect design aeb3528). The original TASK-1-1 wrongly instructed\ + \ the coder to populate Slice.repo and normalize the pipeline repo INSIDE the\ + \ shared/egg_contracts/models.py migration validator \u2014 architecturally\ + \ impossible: the Contract model has no repo field and cannot see the separately-loaded\ + \ orchestrator Pipeline. Realigned to the two-layer resolver design: (1) CONTRACT\ + \ layer (shared/egg_contracts/models.py) \u2014 add Slice.repo:str|None and\ + \ bump schemaVersion 1.3\u21921.4 as a PURE ADDITIVE after-stamp `_migrate_schema_version_to_1_4`\ + \ mirroring `_migrate_schema_version_to_1_3` verbatim (guard ==\"1.3\", idempotent,\ + \ NO field mutation; Slice.repo stays None on legacy load); the migration does\ + \ NOT fill repo and does NOT reference any pipeline; no repo list on the Contract.\ + \ (2) ORCHESTRATOR layer (orchestrator/models.py) \u2014 RepoSpec + Pipeline.repos\ + \ with a validator that synthesizes the list from a legacy singleton and mirrors\ + \ repos[0] back for legacy readers, a primary_repo property, and the RUNTIME\ + \ resolver `resolve_slice_repo(slice, pipeline) -> slice.repo or pipeline.primary_repo`\ + \ where absent\u21D2primary is resolved. (3) TASK-1-3 tests split across both\ + \ layers (contract test_models.py: additive stamp + Slice.repo stays None; orchestrator\ + \ test_models.py: resolver, legacy-singleton synthesis, primary_repo, N=1).\ + \ Prose Slice-1 section, AC-3 mapping, PR description bullet 1, and risk notes\ + \ all updated to match. Slices 2\u20136 unchanged (risk_analyst confirmed R2\u2013\ + R7 sound). Re-validated: parse_plan success, preflight OK, forest/overlap/role-alignment\ + \ all clean; new orchestrator/tests/test_models.py confirmed tester-writable." + attestation: {} + artifacts: + - .egg-state/drafts/3393-plan.md + risk_considered: "R1 resolved: contract migration is now a pure additive stamp\ + \ (no field mutation, mirrors the 1.3 precedent); absent\u21D2primary is a runtime\ + \ resolver at the orchestrator layer taking the pipeline as a second input;\ + \ legacy singleton\u21D2repos list normalization is an orchestrator/models.py\ + \ concern; the repo list persists only on the orchestrator Pipeline, never on\ + \ the Contract. Chain-root ordering still guarantees the schema lands before\ + \ any producer writes Slice.repo. Remaining risks unchanged: pipelines.py serial\ + \ spine (linear chain deliberate, do not re-parallelize per #3046); draft\u2192\ + ready poll is a mechanical GitHub signal, not release detection (cq-1); owner/repo\ + \ re-key prohibitive fan-out \u21D2 new HITL, never silent fallback (ruling\ + \ #6)." + commit_sha: bf02392c8886e25c0b95121056237839b61de719 + files_changed: + - .egg-state/drafts/3393-plan.md + - .egg-state/agent-outputs/task_planner/brc-memory-issue-3393.md + tests_run: [] + tasks_satisfied: + - task-1-1 + - task-1-2 + - task-1-3 + - task-2-1 + - task-2-2 + - task-2-3 + - task-3-1 + - task-3-2 + - task-3-3 + - task-4-1 + - task-4-2 + - task-4-3 + - task-5-1 + - task-5-2 + - task-5-3 + - task-6-1 + - task-6-2 + - task-6-3 + no_changes_needed: false + no_changes_reason: '' + version: 2 + commit_sha: bf02392c8886e25c0b95121056237839b61de719 +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:19:58Z] orchestrator → simplifier (CONSENSUS_RE_REVIEW): Re-review required: task_planner submitted new proposal v2 + +Producer task_planner has submitted a new proposal (version 2) after withdrawal. Your previous confirmation was on an earlier version. Please re-review and ACK/NACK the new proposal. + +**Adversarial re-review** + +**Your v2 review has TWO equal-weight mandates:** + +1. **Verify named v1 blockers were addressed** — confirm the producer fixed what you NACK'd. +2. **Audit the delta since your last review (per REVIEWER-SYNC.md: `git log {last_reviewed_commit}..HEAD --not origin/{base_branch} -p` — the commits landed since the version you last verdicted, NOT the whole accumulated proposal surface) as a fresh reviewer** — ignore your v1 NACK history. Read that diff as if you'd never seen the prior version. Apply your lens (security threat-model, concurrency races, contract AC, line-by-line bugs, silent-fallback shapes — whichever your role owns) to the delta itself, not to whether your previous concerns were satisfied. **Mandate 2 is bounded to this delta** — it does NOT ask you to re-traverse the whole accumulated surface from earlier cycles; that work was amortized when you first reviewed those commits. + +Both mandates have equal weight. If (1) passes but (2) finds new issues, you NACK. ACK requires both pass. + +**The named-blockers anchor is a known trap. Every reviewer lens has a mandate-2 in its own territory** — security has newly-introduced threat surfaces, concurrency has newly-introduced races, contract has newly-introduced AC drift, code has newly-introduced line-by-line bugs. The four issues that escaped PR #2724 to the GitHub bot were all of code-lens shape (`${ANSWER}` as bare Python, deprecated `datetime.utcnow()`, non-atomic write, bare `except: pass`) — the persistent reviewer correctly answered mandate 1 ("did prior issues get fixed? yes") and skipped mandate 2 ("does this delta introduce new issues? actually yes"). The shape generalizes: whatever your lens, this delta can introduce issues your prior NACK didn't name. Watching the producer deliver a targeted fix pulls strongly toward "verify my fix-request landed → ACK." Recognize the pull and do mandate 2 anyway. + +**How to execute mandate 2:** + +- Read each new hunk as an operator who's about to copy-paste / run / integrate it. Would this code execute as written? Would these docs send a copy-paster down a working path? +- Apply every rubric pass to the new hunks. New issues outside the scope of your prior NACK are blocking; your prior NACK does not bound this re-review. +- **Fresh-reviewer simulation.** Before issuing your v2 verdict, ask: would a reviewer who has only seen this delta (the commits since your last review) with no NACK history ACK this? If you can't argue yes from that diff alone, NACK. +- **External-bot anchor.** Imagine `egg-reviewer[bot]` reads only this delta (the commits since your last review) with no NACK context. What would it flag? Anything it'd flag, you should NACK first. + +**Your v2 verdict must enumerate both halves** so mandate 2 doesn't silently disappear from the record: + +- (a) Which v1 blockers you verified-fixed (mandate 1). +- (b) What new issues you audited-and-did-not-find (mandate 2). Name the specific shapes you checked — not "reviewed thoroughly," but "checked for silent fallbacks, doc-snippet executability, API-deprecation, atomicity of file writes." If you can't enumerate (b), you haven't done mandate 2. + +**Re-reviews are cheap by design.** Your amortized context means the work is "read the delta, apply your rubric, decide" — minutes, not hours. NACK without hesitance; the orchestrator absorbs cycles. Two NACKs on the same producer where the second names new findings is the correct trajectory, not goalpost-moving. The downstream GitHub reviewer should find nothing in this delta. Anything it catches that lives in this cycle's diff is a miss attributable to this re-review. + +````yaml +id: 05f70e88-48c7-46 +phase: plan +metadata: + producer_role: task_planner + version: 2 +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:20:03Z] simplifier (CONSENSUS_CONFIRMED): Consensus confirmed by simplifier + +orchestrator-side confirm (#3064 event loop) + +````yaml +id: 2f6032ac-f993-45 +phase: plan +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:20:04Z] risk_analyst (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +one-shot event handler action=ack (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: 5496c91b-94ac-47 +phase: plan +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:20:05Z] reviewer_plan (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +one-shot event handler action=ack (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: eae5602a-be35-44 +phase: plan +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:20:10Z] task_planner (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +context-measure occ=164086 util=0.16 cache_hit=0.99 decision=below_threshold + +````yaml +id: 29a68c6d-e578-47 +phase: plan +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:20:12Z] risk_analyst (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: e9a42212-c41c-40 +phase: plan +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:20:15Z] reviewer_plan (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: 3bdcc090-9a6e-40 +phase: plan +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:20:33Z] overseer (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: b84d670a-1463-42 +phase: plan +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:21:06Z] risk_analyst → task_planner (CONSENSUS_ACK): ACK from risk_analyst for task_planner + +ACK v2 (bf02392c8). My v1 NACK — the slice-1 contract-model migration was architecturally impossible (a schemaVersion-1.3 contract carries no repo and cannot see the orchestrator Pipeline, so the validator had nothing to fill Slice.repo from) — is fully resolved. v2 realigns slice-1 to the ratified architect (aeb3528) two-layer design, addressing all four required-fix points: (1) TASK-1-1 is now a PURE ADDITIVE _migrate_schema_version_to_1_4 stamp mirroring _migrate_schema_version_to_1_3 verbatim (guard on "1.3", idempotent, NO field mutation — Slice.repo stays None on legacy load), and explicitly does NOT populate Slice.repo or reference any pipeline repo, and adds no repo list to the Contract; (2) absent Slice.repo ⇒ primary is now the RUNTIME resolver resolve_slice_repo(slice, pipeline) at the orchestrator layer (TASK-1-2), taking the pipeline as the second input the contract model cannot provide; (3) legacy singleton Pipeline.repo → one-element repos list is an orchestrator/models.py concern (TASK-1-2 RepoSpec + Pipeline.repos + synthesize/mirror-back validator), not the contract migration; (4) the plan states outright that the repo list lives only on the orchestrator Pipeline, never on the Contract. TASK-1-3 tests are correctly split: contract-layer asserts Slice.repo stays None on legacy load (no model-filled repo) + idempotent 1.4 stamp + four prior migration branches intact; orchestrator-layer asserts resolve_slice_repo (set⇒slice.repo, None⇒primary), legacy-singleton⇒one-element repos + mirror-back, primary_repo==repos[0].repo, N=1 parity. Verified anchors live: _migrate_schema_version_to_1_3 at models.py:1049 (bump :1067-68), schemaVersion docstring ~:860 — all accurate. Diff is confined to the slice-1 region (slice-1 detail, AC-3 row, notes, pr summary, TASK-1-1/1-2/1-3); slices 2–6 unchanged, so my v1 finding that R2 (TASK-3-1 preserves EGG_PIPELINE_REPO primary + adds owner/repo map), R3 (TASK-5-1/5-2 two-tier draft→ready poll + HITL), R4 (TASK-2-2 uniformity validators), R5 (TASK-3-2 owner/repo re-key + prohibitive-fan-out HITL), R6 (TASK-6-1 per-repo conventions), R7 (slice 6 status) are all sound still holds. No blocking issues remain. + +````yaml +id: c9513cac-e509-44 +phase: plan +metadata: + payload: + artifact_references: + - .egg-state/drafts/3393-plan.md + reason: "ACK v2 (bf02392c8). My v1 NACK \u2014 the slice-1 contract-model migration\ + \ was architecturally impossible (a schemaVersion-1.3 contract carries no repo\ + \ and cannot see the orchestrator Pipeline, so the validator had nothing to\ + \ fill Slice.repo from) \u2014 is fully resolved. v2 realigns slice-1 to the\ + \ ratified architect (aeb3528) two-layer design, addressing all four required-fix\ + \ points: (1) TASK-1-1 is now a PURE ADDITIVE _migrate_schema_version_to_1_4\ + \ stamp mirroring _migrate_schema_version_to_1_3 verbatim (guard on \"1.3\"\ + , idempotent, NO field mutation \u2014 Slice.repo stays None on legacy load),\ + \ and explicitly does NOT populate Slice.repo or reference any pipeline repo,\ + \ and adds no repo list to the Contract; (2) absent Slice.repo \u21D2 primary\ + \ is now the RUNTIME resolver resolve_slice_repo(slice, pipeline) at the orchestrator\ + \ layer (TASK-1-2), taking the pipeline as the second input the contract model\ + \ cannot provide; (3) legacy singleton Pipeline.repo \u2192 one-element repos\ + \ list is an orchestrator/models.py concern (TASK-1-2 RepoSpec + Pipeline.repos\ + \ + synthesize/mirror-back validator), not the contract migration; (4) the plan\ + \ states outright that the repo list lives only on the orchestrator Pipeline,\ + \ never on the Contract. TASK-1-3 tests are correctly split: contract-layer\ + \ asserts Slice.repo stays None on legacy load (no model-filled repo) + idempotent\ + \ 1.4 stamp + four prior migration branches intact; orchestrator-layer asserts\ + \ resolve_slice_repo (set\u21D2slice.repo, None\u21D2primary), legacy-singleton\u21D2\ + one-element repos + mirror-back, primary_repo==repos[0].repo, N=1 parity. Verified\ + \ anchors live: _migrate_schema_version_to_1_3 at models.py:1049 (bump :1067-68),\ + \ schemaVersion docstring ~:860 \u2014 all accurate. Diff is confined to the\ + \ slice-1 region (slice-1 detail, AC-3 row, notes, pr summary, TASK-1-1/1-2/1-3);\ + \ slices 2\u20136 unchanged, so my v1 finding that R2 (TASK-3-1 preserves EGG_PIPELINE_REPO\ + \ primary + adds owner/repo map), R3 (TASK-5-1/5-2 two-tier draft\u2192ready\ + \ poll + HITL), R4 (TASK-2-2 uniformity validators), R5 (TASK-3-2 owner/repo\ + \ re-key + prohibitive-fan-out HITL), R6 (TASK-6-1 per-repo conventions), R7\ + \ (slice 6 status) are all sound still holds. No blocking issues remain." + ack_version: 2 + version: 2 +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:21:06Z] orchestrator → risk_analyst (STATUS): Ready to confirm — all confirm preconditions satisfied + +Your proposal (version 1) is ready to confirm — all blocking reviews are clear and global confirm preconditions are met. Run `egg-orch consensus confirmed` to confirm. + +````yaml +id: 0779c76c-ea90-45 +phase: plan +metadata: + ready_to_confirm: true + version: 1 +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:21:11Z] risk_analyst (CONSENSUS_CONFIRMED): Consensus confirmed by risk_analyst + +orchestrator-side confirm (#3064 event loop) + +````yaml +id: 450a3a6b-da1e-40 +phase: plan +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:21:20Z] reviewer_plan → task_planner (CONSENSUS_NACK): NACK from reviewer_plan for task_planner + +v2 correctly realigned slice-1 to the two-layer resolver design (risk_analyst R1) — R1/R2/R4/R5/R6 remain addressed. But v2 did NOT touch slice-5, so my standing R3 block is unresolved. risk_analyst flagged R3 requires_human_review=true and said the poll's FAILURE semantics must be pinned by the plan; the architect design I ACKed (aeb3528, layer_6) already pins them — TASK-5-1 just needs to fold them in. Three concrete gaps in TASK-5-1/acceptance: + +(1) MERGE-DETECTION unpinned: TASK-5-1 says only 'observe the upstream slice's PR merge state'. Pin it to the PR merged-boolean / merged_at (gh pr view --json state,mergedAt), NOT head-SHA equality — a squash/rebase merge produces a merge commit SHA != the PR head, so SHA-equality detection misfires. (architect aeb3528 layer_6 specifies exactly this.) + +(2) CLOSED-UNMERGED TERMINAL unpinned: TASK-5-1 + acceptance cover only the happy path (upstream merges => ready). Pin the terminal for upstream PR CLOSED-not-merged: do NOT auto-ready; escalate to a HITL hold (recommended default). Tier B (TASK-5-2) is beyond-merge-state (release/publish/version-pin) and does NOT cover this Tier-A failure terminal. + +(3) BOUND/TIMEOUT unpinned: the planning note calls the poll 'bounded' but defines no bound. Pin a bound/timeout so a never-merging upstream escalates to HITL rather than leaving the dependent PR draft indefinitely. + +Fix: extend TASK-5-1 (description + acceptance) and TASK-5-3 (tests) to pin (a) merged-boolean/merged_at detection, (b) closed-unmerged => HITL, and (c) a poll bound/timeout => HITL. Add test cases for the closed-unmerged and never-merging terminals (mocked). Once TASK-5-1 carries these three, R3 clears and I ACK. + +````yaml +id: b294684c-787e-44 +phase: plan +metadata: + payload: + reason: "v2 correctly realigned slice-1 to the two-layer resolver design (risk_analyst\ + \ R1) \u2014 R1/R2/R4/R5/R6 remain addressed. But v2 did NOT touch slice-5,\ + \ so my standing R3 block is unresolved. risk_analyst flagged R3 requires_human_review=true\ + \ and said the poll's FAILURE semantics must be pinned by the plan; the architect\ + \ design I ACKed (aeb3528, layer_6) already pins them \u2014 TASK-5-1 just needs\ + \ to fold them in. Three concrete gaps in TASK-5-1/acceptance:\n\n(1) MERGE-DETECTION\ + \ unpinned: TASK-5-1 says only 'observe the upstream slice's PR merge state'.\ + \ Pin it to the PR merged-boolean / merged_at (gh pr view --json state,mergedAt),\ + \ NOT head-SHA equality \u2014 a squash/rebase merge produces a merge commit\ + \ SHA != the PR head, so SHA-equality detection misfires. (architect aeb3528\ + \ layer_6 specifies exactly this.)\n\n(2) CLOSED-UNMERGED TERMINAL unpinned:\ + \ TASK-5-1 + acceptance cover only the happy path (upstream merges => ready).\ + \ Pin the terminal for upstream PR CLOSED-not-merged: do NOT auto-ready; escalate\ + \ to a HITL hold (recommended default). Tier B (TASK-5-2) is beyond-merge-state\ + \ (release/publish/version-pin) and does NOT cover this Tier-A failure terminal.\n\ + \n(3) BOUND/TIMEOUT unpinned: the planning note calls the poll 'bounded' but\ + \ defines no bound. Pin a bound/timeout so a never-merging upstream escalates\ + \ to HITL rather than leaving the dependent PR draft indefinitely.\n\nFix: extend\ + \ TASK-5-1 (description + acceptance) and TASK-5-3 (tests) to pin (a) merged-boolean/merged_at\ + \ detection, (b) closed-unmerged => HITL, and (c) a poll bound/timeout => HITL.\ + \ Add test cases for the closed-unmerged and never-merging terminals (mocked).\ + \ Once TASK-5-1 carries these three, R3 clears and I ACK." + artifact_references: + - .egg-state/drafts/3393-plan.md + nack_version: 2 + reason: "v2 correctly realigned slice-1 to the two-layer resolver design (risk_analyst\ + \ R1) \u2014 R1/R2/R4/R5/R6 remain addressed. But v2 did NOT touch slice-5, so\ + \ my standing R3 block is unresolved. risk_analyst flagged R3 requires_human_review=true\ + \ and said the poll's FAILURE semantics must be pinned by the plan; the architect\ + \ design I ACKed (aeb3528, layer_6) already pins them \u2014 TASK-5-1 just needs\ + \ to fold them in. Three concrete gaps in TASK-5-1/acceptance:\n\n(1) MERGE-DETECTION\ + \ unpinned: TASK-5-1 says only 'observe the upstream slice's PR merge state'.\ + \ Pin it to the PR merged-boolean / merged_at (gh pr view --json state,mergedAt),\ + \ NOT head-SHA equality \u2014 a squash/rebase merge produces a merge commit SHA\ + \ != the PR head, so SHA-equality detection misfires. (architect aeb3528 layer_6\ + \ specifies exactly this.)\n\n(2) CLOSED-UNMERGED TERMINAL unpinned: TASK-5-1\ + \ + acceptance cover only the happy path (upstream merges => ready). Pin the terminal\ + \ for upstream PR CLOSED-not-merged: do NOT auto-ready; escalate to a HITL hold\ + \ (recommended default). Tier B (TASK-5-2) is beyond-merge-state (release/publish/version-pin)\ + \ and does NOT cover this Tier-A failure terminal.\n\n(3) BOUND/TIMEOUT unpinned:\ + \ the planning note calls the poll 'bounded' but defines no bound. Pin a bound/timeout\ + \ so a never-merging upstream escalates to HITL rather than leaving the dependent\ + \ PR draft indefinitely.\n\nFix: extend TASK-5-1 (description + acceptance) and\ + \ TASK-5-3 (tests) to pin (a) merged-boolean/merged_at detection, (b) closed-unmerged\ + \ => HITL, and (c) a poll bound/timeout => HITL. Add test cases for the closed-unmerged\ + \ and never-merging terminals (mocked). Once TASK-5-1 carries these three, R3\ + \ clears and I ACK." + revision_count: 1 +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:21:23Z] risk_analyst (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +context-measure occ=152236 util=0.15 cache_hit=0.96 decision=below_threshold + +````yaml +id: 0b4ba53d-c1d8-4f +phase: plan +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:21:25Z] task_planner (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +one-shot event handler action=propose (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: d693df9b-8a2d-4b +phase: plan +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:21:28Z] reviewer_plan (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +context-measure occ=121294 util=0.12 cache_hit=0.97 decision=below_threshold + +````yaml +id: 2b10ec87-7d52-4f +phase: plan +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:21:37Z] task_planner (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: 710d6e5f-d328-4d +phase: plan +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:23:46Z] overseer (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: 527bf8d1-157f-4b +phase: plan +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:23:56Z] task_planner (CONSENSUS_PROPOSE): Proposal from task_planner + +v3 — addresses reviewer_plan R3 NACK on slice-5 (CONCEDED; aligned to architect aeb3528 layer_6). TASK-5-1 (description + acceptance) and TASK-5-3 (tests) now pin the three previously-unpinned failure semantics: (a) MERGE DETECTION uses the PR merged boolean / mergedAt (gh pr view --json state,mergedAt), NOT head-SHA equality (a squash/rebase merge yields a merge-commit SHA ≠ PR head, so SHA-equality misfires); on merged⇒ a NEW gateway verb mark_pr_ready(repo, pr_number) wrapping the existing gh pr ready (github_client.py:124) transitions the dependent PR draft→ready, with the poll living on the existing reconcile cadence (extend stacked_pr_reconciler.py or a small cross_repo_merge_gate.py). (b) CLOSED-UNMERGED TERMINAL: an upstream PR closed-not-merged does NOT auto-ready — it escalates to a HITL hold and is surfaced on status (distinct from Tier B's beyond-merge-state conditions; it is the Tier-A failure terminal). (c) BOUND/TIMEOUT: the poll is bounded, and a never-merging upstream that exceeds the bound escalates to the HITL hold rather than leaving the PR draft indefinitely ("if the auto path cannot resolve, fall through to the HITL hold rather than hanging"). TASK-5-3 adds mocked test cases for the squash-merge SHA≠head path, the closed-unmerged⇒HITL terminal, and the never-merging⇒HITL bound. TASK-5-1 file list expanded to include stacked_pr_reconciler.py, gateway_client/_pr.py, gateway/gateway.py, gateway/github_client.py (all coder-writable; overlap clean since slice-5 is a transitive descendant of slices 3&4). Prose Slice-5 section and PR-description bullet 5 updated. Slices 1–4, 6 unchanged. Re-validated: parse_plan success, preflight OK, forest/overlap/role-alignment all clean. + +**Adversarial re-review** + +**Your v3 review has TWO equal-weight mandates:** + +1. **Verify named v2 blockers were addressed** — confirm the producer fixed what you NACK'd. +2. **Audit the delta since your last review (per REVIEWER-SYNC.md: `git log {last_reviewed_commit}..HEAD --not origin/{base_branch} -p` — the commits landed since the version you last verdicted, NOT the whole accumulated proposal surface) as a fresh reviewer** — ignore your v2 NACK history. Read that diff as if you'd never seen the prior version. Apply your lens (security threat-model, concurrency races, contract AC, line-by-line bugs, silent-fallback shapes — whichever your role owns) to the delta itself, not to whether your previous concerns were satisfied. **Mandate 2 is bounded to this delta** — it does NOT ask you to re-traverse the whole accumulated surface from earlier cycles; that work was amortized when you first reviewed those commits. + +Both mandates have equal weight. If (1) passes but (2) finds new issues, you NACK. ACK requires both pass. + +**The named-blockers anchor is a known trap. Every reviewer lens has a mandate-2 in its own territory** — security has newly-introduced threat surfaces, concurrency has newly-introduced races, contract has newly-introduced AC drift, code has newly-introduced line-by-line bugs. The four issues that escaped PR #2724 to the GitHub bot were all of code-lens shape (`${ANSWER}` as bare Python, deprecated `datetime.utcnow()`, non-atomic write, bare `except: pass`) — the persistent reviewer correctly answered mandate 1 ("did prior issues get fixed? yes") and skipped mandate 2 ("does this delta introduce new issues? actually yes"). The shape generalizes: whatever your lens, this delta can introduce issues your prior NACK didn't name. Watching the producer deliver a targeted fix pulls strongly toward "verify my fix-request landed → ACK." Recognize the pull and do mandate 2 anyway. + +**How to execute mandate 2:** + +- Read each new hunk as an operator who's about to copy-paste / run / integrate it. Would this code execute as written? Would these docs send a copy-paster down a working path? +- Apply every rubric pass to the new hunks. New issues outside the scope of your prior NACK are blocking; your prior NACK does not bound this re-review. +- **Fresh-reviewer simulation.** Before issuing your v3 verdict, ask: would a reviewer who has only seen this delta (the commits since your last review) with no NACK history ACK this? If you can't argue yes from that diff alone, NACK. +- **External-bot anchor.** Imagine `egg-reviewer[bot]` reads only this delta (the commits since your last review) with no NACK context. What would it flag? Anything it'd flag, you should NACK first. + +**Your v3 verdict must enumerate both halves** so mandate 2 doesn't silently disappear from the record: + +- (a) Which v2 blockers you verified-fixed (mandate 1). +- (b) What new issues you audited-and-did-not-find (mandate 2). Name the specific shapes you checked — not "reviewed thoroughly," but "checked for silent fallbacks, doc-snippet executability, API-deprecation, atomicity of file writes." If you can't enumerate (b), you haven't done mandate 2. + +**Re-reviews are cheap by design.** Your amortized context means the work is "read the delta, apply your rubric, decide" — minutes, not hours. NACK without hesitance; the orchestrator absorbs cycles. Two NACKs on the same producer where the second names new findings is the correct trajectory, not goalpost-moving. The downstream GitHub reviewer should find nothing in this delta. Anything it catches that lives in this cycle's diff is a miss attributable to this re-review. + +````yaml +id: 2dbcab55-d574-41 +phase: plan +metadata: + payload: + summary: "v3 \u2014 addresses reviewer_plan R3 NACK on slice-5 (CONCEDED; aligned\ + \ to architect aeb3528 layer_6). TASK-5-1 (description + acceptance) and TASK-5-3\ + \ (tests) now pin the three previously-unpinned failure semantics: (a) MERGE\ + \ DETECTION uses the PR merged boolean / mergedAt (gh pr view --json state,mergedAt),\ + \ NOT head-SHA equality (a squash/rebase merge yields a merge-commit SHA \u2260\ + \ PR head, so SHA-equality misfires); on merged\u21D2 a NEW gateway verb mark_pr_ready(repo,\ + \ pr_number) wrapping the existing gh pr ready (github_client.py:124) transitions\ + \ the dependent PR draft\u2192ready, with the poll living on the existing reconcile\ + \ cadence (extend stacked_pr_reconciler.py or a small cross_repo_merge_gate.py).\ + \ (b) CLOSED-UNMERGED TERMINAL: an upstream PR closed-not-merged does NOT auto-ready\ + \ \u2014 it escalates to a HITL hold and is surfaced on status (distinct from\ + \ Tier B's beyond-merge-state conditions; it is the Tier-A failure terminal).\ + \ (c) BOUND/TIMEOUT: the poll is bounded, and a never-merging upstream that\ + \ exceeds the bound escalates to the HITL hold rather than leaving the PR draft\ + \ indefinitely (\"if the auto path cannot resolve, fall through to the HITL\ + \ hold rather than hanging\"). TASK-5-3 adds mocked test cases for the squash-merge\ + \ SHA\u2260head path, the closed-unmerged\u21D2HITL terminal, and the never-merging\u21D2\ + HITL bound. TASK-5-1 file list expanded to include stacked_pr_reconciler.py,\ + \ gateway_client/_pr.py, gateway/gateway.py, gateway/github_client.py (all coder-writable;\ + \ overlap clean since slice-5 is a transitive descendant of slices 3&4). Prose\ + \ Slice-5 section and PR-description bullet 5 updated. Slices 1\u20134, 6 unchanged.\ + \ Re-validated: parse_plan success, preflight OK, forest/overlap/role-alignment\ + \ all clean." + attestation: {} + artifacts: + - .egg-state/drafts/3393-plan.md + risk_considered: 'R3 resolved: merge detection keyed off merged-state (mergedAt), + not head-SHA; both Tier-A failure terminals (closed-unmerged, never-merging/timeout) + escalate to a HITL hold rather than hanging or false-readying; new mark_pr_ready + verb wraps the existing gh pr ready. Development remains non-serialized (only + PR ready-state waits); no release/version auto-detection (cq-1). File-overlap + ordering preserved: slice-5''s added gateway.py/_pr.py edits sit downstream + of slices 3&4 that own them, so #3046 stays clean. R1/R2/R4/R5/R6/R7 remain + addressed from v2.' + commit_sha: 7fb31c8a5b0310379de04bec4a12bd4e3f3e17d9 + files_changed: + - .egg-state/drafts/3393-plan.md + - .egg-state/agent-outputs/task_planner/brc-memory-issue-3393.md + tests_run: [] + tasks_satisfied: + - task-1-1 + - task-1-2 + - task-1-3 + - task-2-1 + - task-2-2 + - task-2-3 + - task-3-1 + - task-3-2 + - task-3-3 + - task-4-1 + - task-4-2 + - task-4-3 + - task-5-1 + - task-5-2 + - task-5-3 + - task-6-1 + - task-6-2 + - task-6-3 + no_changes_needed: false + no_changes_reason: '' + version: 3 + commit_sha: 7fb31c8a5b0310379de04bec4a12bd4e3f3e17d9 +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:23:56Z] orchestrator → risk_analyst (CONSENSUS_RE_REVIEW): Re-review required: task_planner submitted new proposal v3 + +Producer task_planner has submitted a new proposal (version 3) after withdrawal. Your previous confirmation was on an earlier version. Please re-review and ACK/NACK the new proposal. + +**Adversarial re-review** + +**Your v3 review has TWO equal-weight mandates:** + +1. **Verify named v2 blockers were addressed** — confirm the producer fixed what you NACK'd. +2. **Audit the delta since your last review (`git log bf02392c8886e25c0b95121056237839b61de719..7fb31c8a5b0310379de04bec4a12bd4e3f3e17d9 --not origin/ -p` — the commits landed since the version you last verdicted) as a fresh reviewer** — ignore your v2 NACK history. Read that diff as if you'd never seen the prior version. Apply your lens (security threat-model, concurrency races, contract AC, line-by-line bugs, silent-fallback shapes — whichever your role owns) to the delta itself, not to whether your previous concerns were satisfied. **Mandate 2 is bounded to this delta** — it does NOT ask you to re-traverse the whole accumulated surface from earlier cycles; that work was amortized when you first reviewed those commits. + +Both mandates have equal weight. If (1) passes but (2) finds new issues, you NACK. ACK requires both pass. + +**The named-blockers anchor is a known trap. Every reviewer lens has a mandate-2 in its own territory** — security has newly-introduced threat surfaces, concurrency has newly-introduced races, contract has newly-introduced AC drift, code has newly-introduced line-by-line bugs. The four issues that escaped PR #2724 to the GitHub bot were all of code-lens shape (`${ANSWER}` as bare Python, deprecated `datetime.utcnow()`, non-atomic write, bare `except: pass`) — the persistent reviewer correctly answered mandate 1 ("did prior issues get fixed? yes") and skipped mandate 2 ("does this delta introduce new issues? actually yes"). The shape generalizes: whatever your lens, this delta can introduce issues your prior NACK didn't name. Watching the producer deliver a targeted fix pulls strongly toward "verify my fix-request landed → ACK." Recognize the pull and do mandate 2 anyway. + +**How to execute mandate 2:** + +- Read each new hunk as an operator who's about to copy-paste / run / integrate it. Would this code execute as written? Would these docs send a copy-paster down a working path? +- Apply every rubric pass to the new hunks. New issues outside the scope of your prior NACK are blocking; your prior NACK does not bound this re-review. +- **Fresh-reviewer simulation.** Before issuing your v3 verdict, ask: would a reviewer who has only seen this delta (`bf02392c8886e25c0b95121056237839b61de719..7fb31c8a5b0310379de04bec4a12bd4e3f3e17d9`) with no NACK history ACK this? If you can't argue yes from that diff alone, NACK. +- **External-bot anchor.** Imagine `egg-reviewer[bot]` reads only this delta (`bf02392c8886e25c0b95121056237839b61de719..7fb31c8a5b0310379de04bec4a12bd4e3f3e17d9`) with no NACK context. What would it flag? Anything it'd flag, you should NACK first. + +**Your v3 verdict must enumerate both halves** so mandate 2 doesn't silently disappear from the record: + +- (a) Which v2 blockers you verified-fixed (mandate 1). +- (b) What new issues you audited-and-did-not-find (mandate 2). Name the specific shapes you checked — not "reviewed thoroughly," but "checked for silent fallbacks, doc-snippet executability, API-deprecation, atomicity of file writes." If you can't enumerate (b), you haven't done mandate 2. + +**Re-reviews are cheap by design.** Your amortized context means the work is "read the delta, apply your rubric, decide" — minutes, not hours. NACK without hesitance; the orchestrator absorbs cycles. Two NACKs on the same producer where the second names new findings is the correct trajectory, not goalpost-moving. The downstream GitHub reviewer should find nothing in this delta. Anything it catches that lives in this cycle's diff is a miss attributable to this re-review. + +````yaml +id: 591dc583-8519-4c +phase: plan +metadata: + producer_role: task_planner + version: 3 +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:23:56Z] orchestrator → simplifier (CONSENSUS_RE_REVIEW): Re-review required: task_planner submitted new proposal v3 + +Producer task_planner has submitted a new proposal (version 3) after withdrawal. Your previous confirmation was on an earlier version. Please re-review and ACK/NACK the new proposal. + +**Adversarial re-review** + +**Your v3 review has TWO equal-weight mandates:** + +1. **Verify named v2 blockers were addressed** — confirm the producer fixed what you NACK'd. +2. **Audit the delta since your last review (per REVIEWER-SYNC.md: `git log {last_reviewed_commit}..HEAD --not origin/{base_branch} -p` — the commits landed since the version you last verdicted, NOT the whole accumulated proposal surface) as a fresh reviewer** — ignore your v2 NACK history. Read that diff as if you'd never seen the prior version. Apply your lens (security threat-model, concurrency races, contract AC, line-by-line bugs, silent-fallback shapes — whichever your role owns) to the delta itself, not to whether your previous concerns were satisfied. **Mandate 2 is bounded to this delta** — it does NOT ask you to re-traverse the whole accumulated surface from earlier cycles; that work was amortized when you first reviewed those commits. + +Both mandates have equal weight. If (1) passes but (2) finds new issues, you NACK. ACK requires both pass. + +**The named-blockers anchor is a known trap. Every reviewer lens has a mandate-2 in its own territory** — security has newly-introduced threat surfaces, concurrency has newly-introduced races, contract has newly-introduced AC drift, code has newly-introduced line-by-line bugs. The four issues that escaped PR #2724 to the GitHub bot were all of code-lens shape (`${ANSWER}` as bare Python, deprecated `datetime.utcnow()`, non-atomic write, bare `except: pass`) — the persistent reviewer correctly answered mandate 1 ("did prior issues get fixed? yes") and skipped mandate 2 ("does this delta introduce new issues? actually yes"). The shape generalizes: whatever your lens, this delta can introduce issues your prior NACK didn't name. Watching the producer deliver a targeted fix pulls strongly toward "verify my fix-request landed → ACK." Recognize the pull and do mandate 2 anyway. + +**How to execute mandate 2:** + +- Read each new hunk as an operator who's about to copy-paste / run / integrate it. Would this code execute as written? Would these docs send a copy-paster down a working path? +- Apply every rubric pass to the new hunks. New issues outside the scope of your prior NACK are blocking; your prior NACK does not bound this re-review. +- **Fresh-reviewer simulation.** Before issuing your v3 verdict, ask: would a reviewer who has only seen this delta (the commits since your last review) with no NACK history ACK this? If you can't argue yes from that diff alone, NACK. +- **External-bot anchor.** Imagine `egg-reviewer[bot]` reads only this delta (the commits since your last review) with no NACK context. What would it flag? Anything it'd flag, you should NACK first. + +**Your v3 verdict must enumerate both halves** so mandate 2 doesn't silently disappear from the record: + +- (a) Which v2 blockers you verified-fixed (mandate 1). +- (b) What new issues you audited-and-did-not-find (mandate 2). Name the specific shapes you checked — not "reviewed thoroughly," but "checked for silent fallbacks, doc-snippet executability, API-deprecation, atomicity of file writes." If you can't enumerate (b), you haven't done mandate 2. + +**Re-reviews are cheap by design.** Your amortized context means the work is "read the delta, apply your rubric, decide" — minutes, not hours. NACK without hesitance; the orchestrator absorbs cycles. Two NACKs on the same producer where the second names new findings is the correct trajectory, not goalpost-moving. The downstream GitHub reviewer should find nothing in this delta. Anything it catches that lives in this cycle's diff is a miss attributable to this re-review. + +````yaml +id: d923b599-0cb4-4f +phase: plan +metadata: + producer_role: task_planner + version: 3 +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:23:56Z] task_planner (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: 046e564d-c358-40 +phase: plan +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:23:59Z] simplifier (CONSENSUS_CONFIRMED): Consensus confirmed by simplifier + +orchestrator-side confirm (#3064 event loop) + +````yaml +id: 0fd6dd15-1570-4a +phase: plan +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:24:01Z] risk_analyst (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +one-shot event handler action=ack (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: c5d55d5d-d746-4c +phase: plan +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:24:02Z] reviewer_plan (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +one-shot event handler action=ack (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: cdcb3bf7-0ab7-46 +phase: plan +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:24:09Z] reviewer_plan (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: 83a39ae0-9870-40 +phase: plan +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:24:11Z] task_planner (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +context-measure occ=181759 util=0.18 cache_hit=0.99 decision=below_threshold + +````yaml +id: 11822612-1c0c-49 +phase: plan +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:24:13Z] risk_analyst (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: 7fd05bcf-7fa8-42 +phase: plan +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:24:41Z] reviewer_plan → task_planner (CONSENSUS_ACK): ACK from reviewer_plan for task_planner + +R3 fully cleared — v3 pins all three merge-poll failure semantics I NACKed, matching the ACKed architect design (aeb3528 layer_6). Verified in the v3 delta: (1) MERGE-DETECTION — TASK-5-1(a) now pins the PR merged-boolean/mergedAt (gh pr view --json state,mergedAt), explicitly NOT head-SHA equality (calls out the squash/rebase merge-commit-SHA≠head trap); acceptance + TASK-5-3(a) add a squash-merge SHA≠head test asserting the transition still fires. (2) CLOSED-UNMERGED TERMINAL — TASK-5-1(b): upstream state=CLOSED with null mergedAt does NOT auto-ready; escalates to a HITL hold, correctly distinguished from Tier B's beyond-merge-state conditions; TASK-5-3(b) tests it. (3) BOUND/TIMEOUT — TASK-5-1(c): bounded poll; a never-merging upstream exceeding the bound escalates to the HITL hold rather than leaving the dependent PR draft indefinitely; TASK-5-3(c) tests it. The concrete new machinery is specified: mark_pr_ready(repo, pr_number) wrapping the existing gh pr ready — independently verified the anchor (gateway/github_client.py:124 has 'pr ready' in the permitted-command allowlist), wired via gateway/gateway.py + orchestrator/gateway_client/_pr.py with the file list updated accordingly. R1 (two-layer resolver, addressed in v2), R2, R4, R5, R6 remain addressed and unchanged. All my carried-forward reviewer obligations (R1/R2/R3) are now satisfied. ACK. + +````yaml +id: a77cc1c2-7b1f-4e +phase: plan +metadata: + payload: + artifact_references: + - .egg-state/drafts/3393-plan.md + reason: "R3 fully cleared \u2014 v3 pins all three merge-poll failure semantics\ + \ I NACKed, matching the ACKed architect design (aeb3528 layer_6). Verified\ + \ in the v3 delta: (1) MERGE-DETECTION \u2014 TASK-5-1(a) now pins the PR merged-boolean/mergedAt\ + \ (gh pr view --json state,mergedAt), explicitly NOT head-SHA equality (calls\ + \ out the squash/rebase merge-commit-SHA\u2260head trap); acceptance + TASK-5-3(a)\ + \ add a squash-merge SHA\u2260head test asserting the transition still fires.\ + \ (2) CLOSED-UNMERGED TERMINAL \u2014 TASK-5-1(b): upstream state=CLOSED with\ + \ null mergedAt does NOT auto-ready; escalates to a HITL hold, correctly distinguished\ + \ from Tier B's beyond-merge-state conditions; TASK-5-3(b) tests it. (3) BOUND/TIMEOUT\ + \ \u2014 TASK-5-1(c): bounded poll; a never-merging upstream exceeding the bound\ + \ escalates to the HITL hold rather than leaving the dependent PR draft indefinitely;\ + \ TASK-5-3(c) tests it. The concrete new machinery is specified: mark_pr_ready(repo,\ + \ pr_number) wrapping the existing gh pr ready \u2014 independently verified\ + \ the anchor (gateway/github_client.py:124 has 'pr ready' in the permitted-command\ + \ allowlist), wired via gateway/gateway.py + orchestrator/gateway_client/_pr.py\ + \ with the file list updated accordingly. R1 (two-layer resolver, addressed\ + \ in v2), R2, R4, R5, R6 remain addressed and unchanged. All my carried-forward\ + \ reviewer obligations (R1/R2/R3) are now satisfied. ACK." + ack_version: 3 + version: 3 +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:24:44Z] reviewer_plan (CONSENSUS_CONFIRMED): Consensus confirmed by reviewer_plan + +orchestrator-side confirm (#3064 event loop) + +````yaml +id: c9a7b9c6-f009-42 +phase: plan +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:24:49Z] reviewer_plan (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +context-measure occ=135696 util=0.14 cache_hit=0.99 decision=below_threshold + +````yaml +id: f5be47b5-c1f1-43 +phase: plan +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:25:07Z] risk_analyst → task_planner (CONSENSUS_ACK): ACK from risk_analyst for task_planner + +ACK v3 (7fb31c8a5). The v2→v3 delta is confined to slice-5 (cq-1 merge-sequencing hold) and pins its failure semantics in response to reviewer_plan's R3 NACK — this is precisely the R3 gap I raised in my original risk assessment (unspecified merge-poll terminal/failure states), so v3 strengthens my own finding. All three of my R3 mitigations are now in the plan verbatim: (1) MERGE DETECTION keys off the PR merged boolean / `mergedAt` (`gh pr view --json state,mergedAt`), NOT head-SHA equality — the plan explicitly notes a squash/rebase merge yields a merge-commit SHA ≠ PR head so SHA-equality would misfire; (2) CLOSED-UNMERGED terminal (state=CLOSED, mergedAt=null) does NOT auto-ready and escalates to a HITL hold, distinct from Tier-B; (3) the poll is BOUNDED — a never-merging upstream exceeding the bound escalates to the same HITL hold rather than leaving the PR draft indefinitely. TASK-5-3 tests cover the happy path plus BOTH failure terminals AND a squash-merge SHA≠head case. Implementation anchors verified live: `gh pr ready` at gateway/github_client.py:124 (the new mark_pr_ready verb wraps it); orchestrator/stacked_pr_reconciler.py exists and runs on a fixed 30s cadence via reconcile_once — extending it for the bounded merge-poll reuses proven machinery instead of inventing a scheduler (honors the reconciler's Decision-15 no-new-privilege invariant), which lowers R3 implementation risk; orchestrator/gateway_client/_pr.py already carries draft plumbing (:42,:152). No regression: slice-1's ACKed two-layer runtime-resolver design (my R1) and slices 2/3/4/6 (R2/R4/R5/R6/R7) are untouched by this delta. No blocking issues remain. + +````yaml +id: 0448890d-bb76-42 +phase: plan +metadata: + payload: + artifact_references: + - .egg-state/drafts/3393-plan.md + reason: "ACK v3 (7fb31c8a5). The v2\u2192v3 delta is confined to slice-5 (cq-1\ + \ merge-sequencing hold) and pins its failure semantics in response to reviewer_plan's\ + \ R3 NACK \u2014 this is precisely the R3 gap I raised in my original risk assessment\ + \ (unspecified merge-poll terminal/failure states), so v3 strengthens my own\ + \ finding. All three of my R3 mitigations are now in the plan verbatim: (1)\ + \ MERGE DETECTION keys off the PR merged boolean / `mergedAt` (`gh pr view --json\ + \ state,mergedAt`), NOT head-SHA equality \u2014 the plan explicitly notes a\ + \ squash/rebase merge yields a merge-commit SHA \u2260 PR head so SHA-equality\ + \ would misfire; (2) CLOSED-UNMERGED terminal (state=CLOSED, mergedAt=null)\ + \ does NOT auto-ready and escalates to a HITL hold, distinct from Tier-B; (3)\ + \ the poll is BOUNDED \u2014 a never-merging upstream exceeding the bound escalates\ + \ to the same HITL hold rather than leaving the PR draft indefinitely. TASK-5-3\ + \ tests cover the happy path plus BOTH failure terminals AND a squash-merge\ + \ SHA\u2260head case. Implementation anchors verified live: `gh pr ready` at\ + \ gateway/github_client.py:124 (the new mark_pr_ready verb wraps it); orchestrator/stacked_pr_reconciler.py\ + \ exists and runs on a fixed 30s cadence via reconcile_once \u2014 extending\ + \ it for the bounded merge-poll reuses proven machinery instead of inventing\ + \ a scheduler (honors the reconciler's Decision-15 no-new-privilege invariant),\ + \ which lowers R3 implementation risk; orchestrator/gateway_client/_pr.py already\ + \ carries draft plumbing (:42,:152). No regression: slice-1's ACKed two-layer\ + \ runtime-resolver design (my R1) and slices 2/3/4/6 (R2/R4/R5/R6/R7) are untouched\ + \ by this delta. No blocking issues remain." + ack_version: 3 + version: 3 +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:25:07Z] orchestrator → task_planner (STATUS): Ready to confirm — all confirm preconditions satisfied + +Your proposal (version 3) is ready to confirm — all blocking reviews are clear and global confirm preconditions are met. Run `egg-orch consensus confirmed` to confirm. + +````yaml +id: c3dfe4ce-e968-4d +phase: plan +metadata: + ready_to_confirm: true + version: 3 +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:25:09Z] task_planner (CONSENSUS_CONFIRMED): Consensus confirmed by task_planner + +orchestrator-side confirm (#3064 event loop) + +````yaml +id: 2c2a9210-36b8-47 +phase: plan +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:25:09Z] risk_analyst (CONSENSUS_CONFIRMED): Consensus confirmed by risk_analyst + +orchestrator-side confirm (#3064 event loop) + +````yaml +id: b777980b-80b2-46 +phase: plan +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:25:09Z] simplifier (CONSENSUS_CONFIRMED): Consensus confirmed by simplifier + +orchestrator-side confirm (#3064 event loop) + +````yaml +id: bfbb2525-5d97-44 +phase: plan +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:25:09Z] reviewer_plan (CONSENSUS_CONFIRMED): Consensus confirmed by reviewer_plan + +orchestrator-side confirm (#3064 event loop) + +````yaml +id: 744afb1f-b005-4a +phase: plan +```` diff --git a/.egg-state/brc-history/3393-refine.json b/.egg-state/brc-history/3393-refine.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..6eb9e1e41d --- /dev/null +++ b/.egg-state/brc-history/3393-refine.json @@ -0,0 +1,742 @@ +[ + { + "id": "d715f336-cd34-42", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "overseer", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-01T23:58:25.352850+00:00", + "phase": "refine" + }, + { + "id": "ce2f660e-90ed-4c", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "refiner", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "one-shot event handler action=propose (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-01T23:58:25.374310+00:00", + "phase": "refine" + }, + { + "id": "2ce85a95-fbc2-48", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "simplifier", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "one-shot event handler action=propose (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-01T23:58:26.319107+00:00", + "phase": "refine" + }, + { + "id": "95b1ecb1-6663-45", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "simplifier", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-01T23:58:52.486728+00:00", + "phase": "refine" + }, + { + "id": "c9dcdf88-f7c1-4a", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "refiner", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-01T23:59:01.529965+00:00", + "phase": "refine" + }, + { + "id": "f629bafa-4839-43", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "overseer", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "context-measure occ=54347 util=n/a cache_hit=0.96 decision=no_warm_session", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-01T23:59:28.304567+00:00", + "phase": "refine" + }, + { + "id": "7da6adba-d632-44", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "simplifier", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "CONSENSUS_PROPOSE", + "subject": "Proposal from simplifier", + "body": "Simplifier analysis-draft-human, iteration-2 proposal for issue #3393 \u2014 renders the operator's four binding rulings in plain language. (1) Hard-bit #3 rewritten: the folder-map collision fix is DECIDED \u2014 re-key by full owner/repo; rejecting same-name repo sets is ruled out (it would break the any-number-of-repos promise); if re-keying proves prohibitive that returns to the operator as a new decision, never a silent fallback. (2) New 'Where decisions stand' section marks every design question settled and binding (merge ordering, lazy-per-repo branches/umbrella PRs, owner/repo re-key, single-repo test/review scope, naming + per-repo house rules), closing with 'only a new operator decision can reopen any of these'. The cq-1 fold-in and grounding/good-news sections are untouched per the operator's 'no other changes' instruction. Integrity note: verified the refiner's v3 clobber of this file was fully restored (worktree matched my e88c16d61 exactly) before editing.\n\n**Adversarial re-review**\n\n**Your v1 review has TWO equal-weight mandates:**\n\n1. **Verify named prior blockers were addressed** \u2014 confirm the producer fixed what you NACK'd.\n2. **Audit the delta since your last review (per REVIEWER-SYNC.md: `git log {last_reviewed_commit}..HEAD --not origin/{base_branch} -p` \u2014 the commits landed since the version you last verdicted, NOT the whole accumulated proposal surface) as a fresh reviewer** \u2014 ignore your prior NACK history. Read that diff as if you'd never seen the prior version. Apply your lens (security threat-model, concurrency races, contract AC, line-by-line bugs, silent-fallback shapes \u2014 whichever your role owns) to the delta itself, not to whether your previous concerns were satisfied. **Mandate 2 is bounded to this delta** \u2014 it does NOT ask you to re-traverse the whole accumulated surface from earlier cycles; that work was amortized when you first reviewed those commits.\n\nBoth mandates have equal weight. If (1) passes but (2) finds new issues, you NACK. ACK requires both pass.\n\n**The named-blockers anchor is a known trap. Every reviewer lens has a mandate-2 in its own territory** \u2014 security has newly-introduced threat surfaces, concurrency has newly-introduced races, contract has newly-introduced AC drift, code has newly-introduced line-by-line bugs. The four issues that escaped PR #2724 to the GitHub bot were all of code-lens shape (`${ANSWER}` as bare Python, deprecated `datetime.utcnow()`, non-atomic write, bare `except: pass`) \u2014 the persistent reviewer correctly answered mandate 1 (\"did prior issues get fixed? yes\") and skipped mandate 2 (\"does this delta introduce new issues? actually yes\"). The shape generalizes: whatever your lens, this delta can introduce issues your prior NACK didn't name. Watching the producer deliver a targeted fix pulls strongly toward \"verify my fix-request landed \u2192 ACK.\" Recognize the pull and do mandate 2 anyway.\n\n**How to execute mandate 2:**\n\n- Read each new hunk as an operator who's about to copy-paste / run / integrate it. Would this code execute as written? Would these docs send a copy-paster down a working path?\n- Apply every rubric pass to the new hunks. New issues outside the scope of your prior NACK are blocking; your prior NACK does not bound this re-review.\n- **Fresh-reviewer simulation.** Before issuing your v1 verdict, ask: would a reviewer who has only seen this delta (the commits since your last review) with no NACK history ACK this? If you can't argue yes from that diff alone, NACK.\n- **External-bot anchor.** Imagine `egg-reviewer[bot]` reads only this delta (the commits since your last review) with no NACK context. What would it flag? Anything it'd flag, you should NACK first.\n\n**Your v1 verdict must enumerate both halves** so mandate 2 doesn't silently disappear from the record:\n\n- (a) Which prior blockers you verified-fixed (mandate 1).\n- (b) What new issues you audited-and-did-not-find (mandate 2). Name the specific shapes you checked \u2014 not \"reviewed thoroughly,\" but \"checked for silent fallbacks, doc-snippet executability, API-deprecation, atomicity of file writes.\" If you can't enumerate (b), you haven't done mandate 2.\n\n**Re-reviews are cheap by design.** Your amortized context means the work is \"read the delta, apply your rubric, decide\" \u2014 minutes, not hours. NACK without hesitance; the orchestrator absorbs cycles. Two NACKs on the same producer where the second names new findings is the correct trajectory, not goalpost-moving. The downstream GitHub reviewer should find nothing in this delta. Anything it catches that lives in this cycle's diff is a miss attributable to this re-review.", + "metadata": { + "payload": { + "summary": "Simplifier analysis-draft-human, iteration-2 proposal for issue #3393 \u2014 renders the operator's four binding rulings in plain language. (1) Hard-bit #3 rewritten: the folder-map collision fix is DECIDED \u2014 re-key by full owner/repo; rejecting same-name repo sets is ruled out (it would break the any-number-of-repos promise); if re-keying proves prohibitive that returns to the operator as a new decision, never a silent fallback. (2) New 'Where decisions stand' section marks every design question settled and binding (merge ordering, lazy-per-repo branches/umbrella PRs, owner/repo re-key, single-repo test/review scope, naming + per-repo house rules), closing with 'only a new operator decision can reopen any of these'. The cq-1 fold-in and grounding/good-news sections are untouched per the operator's 'no other changes' instruction. Integrity note: verified the refiner's v3 clobber of this file was fully restored (worktree matched my e88c16d61 exactly) before editing.", + "attestation": {}, + "artifacts": [ + ".egg-state/drafts/3393-analysis-human.md" + ], + "risk_considered": "Directive-conflict risk: the operator's ruling (a) supersedes my draft's prior 're-key or reject' either/or framing \u2014 fixed, with the ruled-out option explicitly named so no reader resurrects it. Faithfulness: refiner's ratification fold-in (their v4) is pending; my rendering derives from the operator's directive text itself, the shared source of truth, and a recheck obligation is logged. Clobber risk: refiner v3 overwrote this artifact once already; verified restoration to my exact prior content before building on it.", + "commit_sha": "397c615f2d66905c9b084659a7e4631c0f4aed29", + "files_changed": [ + ".egg-state/drafts/3393-analysis-human.md", + ".egg-state/agent-outputs/simplifier/brc-memory-issue-3393.md" + ], + "tests_run": [], + "tasks_satisfied": [], + "no_changes_needed": false, + "no_changes_reason": "" + }, + "version": 1, + "commit_sha": "397c615f2d66905c9b084659a7e4631c0f4aed29" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:00:07.147740+00:00", + "phase": "refine" + }, + { + "id": "b84d446d-44df-4c", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "reviewer_refine", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "one-shot event handler action=ack (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:00:11.493515+00:00", + "phase": "refine" + }, + { + "id": "0428bc14-7d40-48", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "simplifier", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: PROPOSED", + "body": "simplifier analysis-draft-human iteration-2 proposed (commit 397c615f2, v1): four operator ratifications rendered \u2014 owner/repo re-key decided (rejection ruled out), 'Where decisions stand' section added. Awaiting reviewer_refine; simplifier->refiner edge still owed when refiner's ratification fold-in lands.", + "metadata": { + "state": "PROPOSED" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:00:15.124654+00:00", + "phase": "refine" + }, + { + "id": "01607277-495e-41", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "reviewer_refine", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:00:29.026803+00:00", + "phase": "refine" + }, + { + "id": "27e62327-4919-47", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "simplifier", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "context-measure occ=157555 util=0.16 cache_hit=1.00 decision=below_threshold", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:00:30.036966+00:00", + "phase": "refine" + }, + { + "id": "72572cf0-be96-4c", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "refiner", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "CONSENSUS_PROPOSE", + "subject": "Proposal from refiner", + "body": "Refine analysis v5 for issue #3393 \u2014 records the operator's iteration-1 rulings as BINDING decisions per the gate directive. The \"Design questions\" section is retitled \"OPERATOR RULINGS (binding)\" with an explicit preamble giving items the same standing as the cq-1 HITL resolution \u2014 ratified rulings, not recommendations the planner may revisit (planner owns mechanics/spelling only). (1) Work-branch/context-PR model RATIFIED: lazy-per-repo \u2014 every repo with \u22651 slice gets its own egg//work branch and context PR; sliceless repos get neither; single-slice repos still get the standard context PR. (2) NEW ruling #6, worktree-keying collision: option (a) MANDATED \u2014 re-key the agent-facing repo\u2192path map by full owner/repo; the (b) reject-same-name-sets shortcut is FORBIDDEN (name-uniqueness at submission contradicts arbitrary-N); if re-key fan-out proves prohibitive at plan time that is a new HITL to surface, never a silent fallback. (3) Test-gate/reviewer-diff scoping RATIFIED (slice's repo worktree only, no cross-repo diff surface in v1). (4) Naming/status surfaces + per-repo conventions RATIFIED (primary-repo pipeline naming, uniform branch naming, per-repo PR lists, slice agents under the slice repo's CLAUDE.md/linters/check commands). Consistency-only knock-ons where old option language contradicted the rulings: grounding correction #2's advice sentence now points to ruling #6 (the grounding FACTS \u2014 bare-name keying, file:line \u2014 are untouched; leaving \"planner picks / (b) acceptable\" would contradict the operator verbatim), AC-2 no longer offers same-name rejection, AC-4 requires owner/repo keying. The cq-1 fold-in and all grounding verdicts are byte-identical per the directive's \"do not alter\" clause. Human summary untouched (simplifier-owned; their iteration-2 commit 397c615f2 renders the ratifications \u2014 rebased onto it, no conflict). No new HITL decisions induced by the rulings.\n\n**Adversarial re-review**\n\n**Your v1 review has TWO equal-weight mandates:**\n\n1. **Verify named prior blockers were addressed** \u2014 confirm the producer fixed what you NACK'd.\n2. **Audit the delta since your last review (per REVIEWER-SYNC.md: `git log {last_reviewed_commit}..HEAD --not origin/{base_branch} -p` \u2014 the commits landed since the version you last verdicted, NOT the whole accumulated proposal surface) as a fresh reviewer** \u2014 ignore your prior NACK history. Read that diff as if you'd never seen the prior version. Apply your lens (security threat-model, concurrency races, contract AC, line-by-line bugs, silent-fallback shapes \u2014 whichever your role owns) to the delta itself, not to whether your previous concerns were satisfied. **Mandate 2 is bounded to this delta** \u2014 it does NOT ask you to re-traverse the whole accumulated surface from earlier cycles; that work was amortized when you first reviewed those commits.\n\nBoth mandates have equal weight. If (1) passes but (2) finds new issues, you NACK. ACK requires both pass.\n\n**The named-blockers anchor is a known trap. Every reviewer lens has a mandate-2 in its own territory** \u2014 security has newly-introduced threat surfaces, concurrency has newly-introduced races, contract has newly-introduced AC drift, code has newly-introduced line-by-line bugs. The four issues that escaped PR #2724 to the GitHub bot were all of code-lens shape (`${ANSWER}` as bare Python, deprecated `datetime.utcnow()`, non-atomic write, bare `except: pass`) \u2014 the persistent reviewer correctly answered mandate 1 (\"did prior issues get fixed? yes\") and skipped mandate 2 (\"does this delta introduce new issues? actually yes\"). The shape generalizes: whatever your lens, this delta can introduce issues your prior NACK didn't name. Watching the producer deliver a targeted fix pulls strongly toward \"verify my fix-request landed \u2192 ACK.\" Recognize the pull and do mandate 2 anyway.\n\n**How to execute mandate 2:**\n\n- Read each new hunk as an operator who's about to copy-paste / run / integrate it. Would this code execute as written? Would these docs send a copy-paster down a working path?\n- Apply every rubric pass to the new hunks. New issues outside the scope of your prior NACK are blocking; your prior NACK does not bound this re-review.\n- **Fresh-reviewer simulation.** Before issuing your v1 verdict, ask: would a reviewer who has only seen this delta (the commits since your last review) with no NACK history ACK this? If you can't argue yes from that diff alone, NACK.\n- **External-bot anchor.** Imagine `egg-reviewer[bot]` reads only this delta (the commits since your last review) with no NACK context. What would it flag? Anything it'd flag, you should NACK first.\n\n**Your v1 verdict must enumerate both halves** so mandate 2 doesn't silently disappear from the record:\n\n- (a) Which prior blockers you verified-fixed (mandate 1).\n- (b) What new issues you audited-and-did-not-find (mandate 2). Name the specific shapes you checked \u2014 not \"reviewed thoroughly,\" but \"checked for silent fallbacks, doc-snippet executability, API-deprecation, atomicity of file writes.\" If you can't enumerate (b), you haven't done mandate 2.\n\n**Re-reviews are cheap by design.** Your amortized context means the work is \"read the delta, apply your rubric, decide\" \u2014 minutes, not hours. NACK without hesitance; the orchestrator absorbs cycles. Two NACKs on the same producer where the second names new findings is the correct trajectory, not goalpost-moving. The downstream GitHub reviewer should find nothing in this delta. Anything it catches that lives in this cycle's diff is a miss attributable to this re-review.", + "metadata": { + "payload": { + "summary": "Refine analysis v5 for issue #3393 \u2014 records the operator's iteration-1 rulings as BINDING decisions per the gate directive. The \"Design questions\" section is retitled \"OPERATOR RULINGS (binding)\" with an explicit preamble giving items the same standing as the cq-1 HITL resolution \u2014 ratified rulings, not recommendations the planner may revisit (planner owns mechanics/spelling only). (1) Work-branch/context-PR model RATIFIED: lazy-per-repo \u2014 every repo with \u22651 slice gets its own egg//work branch and context PR; sliceless repos get neither; single-slice repos still get the standard context PR. (2) NEW ruling #6, worktree-keying collision: option (a) MANDATED \u2014 re-key the agent-facing repo\u2192path map by full owner/repo; the (b) reject-same-name-sets shortcut is FORBIDDEN (name-uniqueness at submission contradicts arbitrary-N); if re-key fan-out proves prohibitive at plan time that is a new HITL to surface, never a silent fallback. (3) Test-gate/reviewer-diff scoping RATIFIED (slice's repo worktree only, no cross-repo diff surface in v1). (4) Naming/status surfaces + per-repo conventions RATIFIED (primary-repo pipeline naming, uniform branch naming, per-repo PR lists, slice agents under the slice repo's CLAUDE.md/linters/check commands). Consistency-only knock-ons where old option language contradicted the rulings: grounding correction #2's advice sentence now points to ruling #6 (the grounding FACTS \u2014 bare-name keying, file:line \u2014 are untouched; leaving \"planner picks / (b) acceptable\" would contradict the operator verbatim), AC-2 no longer offers same-name rejection, AC-4 requires owner/repo keying. The cq-1 fold-in and all grounding verdicts are byte-identical per the directive's \"do not alter\" clause. Human summary untouched (simplifier-owned; their iteration-2 commit 397c615f2 renders the ratifications \u2014 rebased onto it, no conflict). No new HITL decisions induced by the rulings.", + "attestation": {}, + "artifacts": [ + ".egg-state/drafts/3393-analysis.md", + ".egg-state/drafts/3393-analysis-human.md" + ], + "risk_considered": "Fidelity: each ruling is recorded with the operator's own constraints (forbidden fallback, HITL-on-prohibitive-fan-out) rather than paraphrased loosely. Directive-compliance tension addressed explicitly: the \"do not alter the grounding sections\" clause was read as protecting verified facts, not as preserving the now-contradicted option-choice sentence in correction #2 \u2014 that one sentence was redirected to ruling #6 and the change is flagged for reviewers to judge; all grounding facts and the cq-1 material are byte-identical. Ownership: human summary untouched (v3 clobber lesson); rebased cleanly onto the simplifier's iteration-2 rendering.", + "commit_sha": "47c1d9db5", + "files_changed": [ + ".egg-state/drafts/3393-analysis.md", + ".egg-state/agent-outputs/refiner/brc-memory-issue-3393.md" + ], + "tests_run": [], + "tasks_satisfied": [], + "no_changes_needed": false, + "no_changes_reason": "" + }, + "version": 1, + "commit_sha": "47c1d9db5" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:00:54.948956+00:00", + "phase": "refine" + }, + { + "id": "6bf95ae5-30b0-47", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "reviewer_refine", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "one-shot event handler action=ack (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:00:59.708205+00:00", + "phase": "refine" + }, + { + "id": "9d7ae748-bce2-48", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "reviewer_agent_design", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "one-shot event handler action=ack (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:01:01.037749+00:00", + "phase": "refine" + }, + { + "id": "00063f5c-28c4-43", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "first_principles_reviewer", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "one-shot event handler action=ack (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:01:02.033776+00:00", + "phase": "refine" + }, + { + "id": "7ea8afaf-feb8-4d", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "refiner", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: PROPOSED", + "body": "refiner v5 proposal for issue-3393 refine phase recorded at 47c1d9db5 \u2014 iteration-1 operator rulings recorded as binding (ratified items 1/3/4/5 + new owner/repo re-key mandate); cq-1 and grounding untouched; awaiting re-review", + "metadata": { + "state": "PROPOSED" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:01:03.442718+00:00", + "phase": "refine" + }, + { + "id": "1340accd-2532-4b", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "refiner", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:01:03.865454+00:00", + "phase": "refine" + }, + { + "id": "ca70e9e3-50c6-4e", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "reviewer_refine", + "to_role": "simplifier", + "message_type": "CONSENSUS_NACK", + "subject": "NACK from reviewer_refine for simplifier", + "body": "One-phrase fix, otherwise ACK-ready. In \"Where decisions stand\", the naming bullet says the pipeline \"is named after the first repo in the list\" \u2014 but the operator's ruling (4) is \"pipeline id keys off the primary repo (first in list UNLESS EXPLICITLY FLAGGED)\". Dropping the explicit-flag escape hatch states a stricter binding rule than the operator made, in a section that tells the reader only a new operator decision can reopen these; a submitter CAN designate a different primary repo. Fix: e.g. \"the pipeline is named after its primary repo \u2014 the first in the list unless the submitter explicitly marks another as primary\". Everything else verified faithful against the iteration-1 directive: hard-bit #3 correctly renders re-key-by-owner/repo with the rejection shortcut ruled out (right rationale: it would break the any-number-of-repos promise) and the escalate-as-new-decision/no-silent-fallback clause; the binding framing matches \"same standing as cq-1, not recommendations the planner may revisit\"; merge-ordering compression is consistent with the untouched four-element hard-bit #1; branches/umbrella-PRs, test/review scoping (no cross-repo diff in v1), uniform branch naming, per-repo PR lists, and house rules all match. Net delta vs your ACKed e88c16d state is exactly this commit; nothing previously ACKed was disturbed.", + "metadata": { + "payload": { + "reason": "One-phrase fix, otherwise ACK-ready. In \"Where decisions stand\", the naming bullet says the pipeline \"is named after the first repo in the list\" \u2014 but the operator's ruling (4) is \"pipeline id keys off the primary repo (first in list UNLESS EXPLICITLY FLAGGED)\". Dropping the explicit-flag escape hatch states a stricter binding rule than the operator made, in a section that tells the reader only a new operator decision can reopen these; a submitter CAN designate a different primary repo. Fix: e.g. \"the pipeline is named after its primary repo \u2014 the first in the list unless the submitter explicitly marks another as primary\". Everything else verified faithful against the iteration-1 directive: hard-bit #3 correctly renders re-key-by-owner/repo with the rejection shortcut ruled out (right rationale: it would break the any-number-of-repos promise) and the escalate-as-new-decision/no-silent-fallback clause; the binding framing matches \"same standing as cq-1, not recommendations the planner may revisit\"; merge-ordering compression is consistent with the untouched four-element hard-bit #1; branches/umbrella-PRs, test/review scoping (no cross-repo diff in v1), uniform branch naming, per-repo PR lists, and house rules all match. Net delta vs your ACKed e88c16d state is exactly this commit; nothing previously ACKed was disturbed.", + "artifact_references": [ + ".egg-state/drafts/3393-analysis-human.md" + ], + "nack_version": 1 + }, + "reason": "One-phrase fix, otherwise ACK-ready. In \"Where decisions stand\", the naming bullet says the pipeline \"is named after the first repo in the list\" \u2014 but the operator's ruling (4) is \"pipeline id keys off the primary repo (first in list UNLESS EXPLICITLY FLAGGED)\". Dropping the explicit-flag escape hatch states a stricter binding rule than the operator made, in a section that tells the reader only a new operator decision can reopen these; a submitter CAN designate a different primary repo. Fix: e.g. \"the pipeline is named after its primary repo \u2014 the first in the list unless the submitter explicitly marks another as primary\". Everything else verified faithful against the iteration-1 directive: hard-bit #3 correctly renders re-key-by-owner/repo with the rejection shortcut ruled out (right rationale: it would break the any-number-of-repos promise) and the escalate-as-new-decision/no-silent-fallback clause; the binding framing matches \"same standing as cq-1, not recommendations the planner may revisit\"; merge-ordering compression is consistent with the untouched four-element hard-bit #1; branches/umbrella-PRs, test/review scoping (no cross-repo diff in v1), uniform branch naming, per-repo PR lists, and house rules all match. Net delta vs your ACKed e88c16d state is exactly this commit; nothing previously ACKed was disturbed.", + "revision_count": 1 + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:01:13.926561+00:00", + "phase": "refine" + }, + { + "id": "4a29a9e9-1b3c-41", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "first_principles_reviewer", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:01:14.614149+00:00", + "phase": "refine" + }, + { + "id": "f96aa391-ef0b-47", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "reviewer_agent_design", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:01:15.901463+00:00", + "phase": "refine" + }, + { + "id": "4d860dea-a544-4e", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "refiner", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "context-measure occ=214506 util=0.21 cache_hit=1.00 decision=below_threshold", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:01:17.871064+00:00", + "phase": "refine" + }, + { + "id": "dc0411f0-3cd8-44", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "simplifier", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "one-shot event handler action=propose (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:01:19.156343+00:00", + "phase": "refine" + }, + { + "id": "ce040f8c-fb2b-45", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "reviewer_refine", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:01:19.176910+00:00", + "phase": "refine" + }, + { + "id": "158d13e6-c7f7-49", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "reviewer_refine", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "one-shot event handler action=ack (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:01:20.165618+00:00", + "phase": "refine" + }, + { + "id": "1d4a89ae-a9f4-4b", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "simplifier", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:01:32.293891+00:00", + "phase": "refine" + }, + { + "id": "3db6f34e-8639-4f", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "reviewer_refine", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:01:34.331561+00:00", + "phase": "refine" + }, + { + "id": "58eab55c-0b7b-4b", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "first_principles_reviewer", + "to_role": "refiner", + "message_type": "CONSENSUS_ACK", + "subject": "ACK from first_principles_reviewer for refiner", + "body": "v5 (47c1d9db5) is a faithful, complete implementation of the iteration-1 operator directive. All four rulings recorded as BINDING with cq-1 standing: (1) lazy-per-repo work-branch/context-PR model RATIFIED (item 1, substance unchanged); (2) worktree-keying ruling #6 captures all three elements essentially verbatim \u2014 owner/repo re-key mandated, reject-same-name-sets forbidden as contradicting arbitrary-N, prohibitive fan-out surfaces as a NEW HITL never a silent fallback; (3) test-gate/reviewer-diff scoping RATIFIED (item 3); (4) naming/status surfaces + per-repo conventions RATIFIED (items 4/5). Status upgrade done right: section retitled \"OPERATOR RULINGS (binding)\" with the planner restricted to mechanics only. Consistency knock-ons verified necessary and minimal: correction #2's stale planner-picks language now defers to ruling #6 with grounding FACTS untouched; AC-2 drops the forbidden same-name-rejection alternative; AC-4 mandates owner/repo keying. Directive constraints respected: cq-1 fold-in appears in no hunk (byte-unchanged); grounding verdicts/evidence untouched; the human doc was modified only by the simplifier's own commit (ownership respected) and its \"Where decisions stand\" section faithfully renders all rulings including the return-to-operator escalation path. \"No new HITL decisions induced\" remains correct. Analysis is operator-directive-compliant and ready for the planner.", + "metadata": { + "payload": { + "artifact_references": [ + ".egg-state/drafts/3393-analysis.md", + ".egg-state/drafts/3393-analysis-human.md" + ], + "reason": "v5 (47c1d9db5) is a faithful, complete implementation of the iteration-1 operator directive. All four rulings recorded as BINDING with cq-1 standing: (1) lazy-per-repo work-branch/context-PR model RATIFIED (item 1, substance unchanged); (2) worktree-keying ruling #6 captures all three elements essentially verbatim \u2014 owner/repo re-key mandated, reject-same-name-sets forbidden as contradicting arbitrary-N, prohibitive fan-out surfaces as a NEW HITL never a silent fallback; (3) test-gate/reviewer-diff scoping RATIFIED (item 3); (4) naming/status surfaces + per-repo conventions RATIFIED (items 4/5). Status upgrade done right: section retitled \"OPERATOR RULINGS (binding)\" with the planner restricted to mechanics only. Consistency knock-ons verified necessary and minimal: correction #2's stale planner-picks language now defers to ruling #6 with grounding FACTS untouched; AC-2 drops the forbidden same-name-rejection alternative; AC-4 mandates owner/repo keying. Directive constraints respected: cq-1 fold-in appears in no hunk (byte-unchanged); grounding verdicts/evidence untouched; the human doc was modified only by the simplifier's own commit (ownership respected) and its \"Where decisions stand\" section faithfully renders all rulings including the return-to-operator escalation path. \"No new HITL decisions induced\" remains correct. Analysis is operator-directive-compliant and ready for the planner.", + "ack_version": 1 + }, + "version": 1 + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:02:01.445793+00:00", + "phase": "refine" + }, + { + "id": "af38c49d-696c-4c", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "first_principles_reviewer", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "CONSENSUS_CONFIRMED", + "subject": "Consensus confirmed by first_principles_reviewer", + "body": "orchestrator-side confirm (#3064 event loop)", + "metadata": {}, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:02:04.988524+00:00", + "phase": "refine" + }, + { + "id": "cd2232a5-a76a-41", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "reviewer_refine", + "to_role": "refiner", + "message_type": "CONSENSUS_ACK", + "subject": "ACK from reviewer_refine for refiner", + "body": "Faithful, complete recording of the iteration-1 operator rulings as BINDING. Section retitled \"OPERATOR RULINGS (binding)\" with an explicit same-standing-as-cq-1 preamble (planner owns mechanics only); items 1/3/4/5 marked RATIFIED with substance preserved verbatim; new ruling #6 carries all three elements of the operator's worktree-keying decision (re-key by full owner/repo; reject-same-name-sets FORBIDDEN as contradicting arbitrary-N; prohibitive fan-out at plan time is a new HITL, never a silent fallback to (b)). The knock-on edits to correction #2's advice sentence, AC-2, and AC-4 are necessary consistency fixes \u2014 the old option-(a)/(b) language would have contradicted the binding ruling \u2014 and the grounding FACTS are untouched, satisfying the directive's \"do not alter cq-1 fold-in or grounding\" constraint in substance (change transparently declared in commit message and decision log). cq-1 section appears only as unchanged diff context. Human summary untouched by this producer (ownership respected; simplifier rendered the ratifications on their own edge). No new HITL decisions induced, correctly \u2014 the rulings close options rather than open them.", + "metadata": { + "payload": { + "artifact_references": [ + ".egg-state/drafts/3393-analysis.md", + ".egg-state/drafts/3393-analysis-human.md" + ], + "reason": "Faithful, complete recording of the iteration-1 operator rulings as BINDING. Section retitled \"OPERATOR RULINGS (binding)\" with an explicit same-standing-as-cq-1 preamble (planner owns mechanics only); items 1/3/4/5 marked RATIFIED with substance preserved verbatim; new ruling #6 carries all three elements of the operator's worktree-keying decision (re-key by full owner/repo; reject-same-name-sets FORBIDDEN as contradicting arbitrary-N; prohibitive fan-out at plan time is a new HITL, never a silent fallback to (b)). The knock-on edits to correction #2's advice sentence, AC-2, and AC-4 are necessary consistency fixes \u2014 the old option-(a)/(b) language would have contradicted the binding ruling \u2014 and the grounding FACTS are untouched, satisfying the directive's \"do not alter cq-1 fold-in or grounding\" constraint in substance (change transparently declared in commit message and decision log). cq-1 section appears only as unchanged diff context. Human summary untouched by this producer (ownership respected; simplifier rendered the ratifications on their own edge). No new HITL decisions induced, correctly \u2014 the rulings close options rather than open them.", + "ack_version": 1 + }, + "version": 1 + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:02:08.502538+00:00", + "phase": "refine" + }, + { + "id": "146aad5f-1692-45", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "first_principles_reviewer", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "context-measure occ=141358 util=0.14 cache_hit=0.97 decision=below_threshold", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:02:12.247597+00:00", + "phase": "refine" + }, + { + "id": "6873ca69-6a03-4f", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "simplifier", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "CONSENSUS_PROPOSE", + "subject": "Proposal from simplifier", + "body": "Simplifier analysis-draft-human iteration-2 v2 for issue #3393 \u2014 addresses reviewer_refine's sole NACK on v1. Fix: the 'Where decisions stand' naming bullet had dropped the operator's explicit-flag escape hatch, stating a stricter binding rule than ruling (4) actually made; now reads 'named after its primary repo \u2014 the first in the list unless the submitter explicitly marks another as primary' (reviewer's suggested phrasing). No other content changed \u2014 the reviewer verified every other rendering faithful against the iteration-1 directive (hard-bit #3 re-key ruling with no-silent-fallback clause, binding framing, merge-ordering compression, branches/umbrella PRs, test/review scoping, per-repo house rules).\n\n**Adversarial re-review**\n\n**Your v2 review has TWO equal-weight mandates:**\n\n1. **Verify named v1 blockers were addressed** \u2014 confirm the producer fixed what you NACK'd.\n2. **Audit the delta since your last review (per REVIEWER-SYNC.md: `git log {last_reviewed_commit}..HEAD --not origin/{base_branch} -p` \u2014 the commits landed since the version you last verdicted, NOT the whole accumulated proposal surface) as a fresh reviewer** \u2014 ignore your v1 NACK history. Read that diff as if you'd never seen the prior version. Apply your lens (security threat-model, concurrency races, contract AC, line-by-line bugs, silent-fallback shapes \u2014 whichever your role owns) to the delta itself, not to whether your previous concerns were satisfied. **Mandate 2 is bounded to this delta** \u2014 it does NOT ask you to re-traverse the whole accumulated surface from earlier cycles; that work was amortized when you first reviewed those commits.\n\nBoth mandates have equal weight. If (1) passes but (2) finds new issues, you NACK. ACK requires both pass.\n\n**The named-blockers anchor is a known trap. Every reviewer lens has a mandate-2 in its own territory** \u2014 security has newly-introduced threat surfaces, concurrency has newly-introduced races, contract has newly-introduced AC drift, code has newly-introduced line-by-line bugs. The four issues that escaped PR #2724 to the GitHub bot were all of code-lens shape (`${ANSWER}` as bare Python, deprecated `datetime.utcnow()`, non-atomic write, bare `except: pass`) \u2014 the persistent reviewer correctly answered mandate 1 (\"did prior issues get fixed? yes\") and skipped mandate 2 (\"does this delta introduce new issues? actually yes\"). The shape generalizes: whatever your lens, this delta can introduce issues your prior NACK didn't name. Watching the producer deliver a targeted fix pulls strongly toward \"verify my fix-request landed \u2192 ACK.\" Recognize the pull and do mandate 2 anyway.\n\n**How to execute mandate 2:**\n\n- Read each new hunk as an operator who's about to copy-paste / run / integrate it. Would this code execute as written? Would these docs send a copy-paster down a working path?\n- Apply every rubric pass to the new hunks. New issues outside the scope of your prior NACK are blocking; your prior NACK does not bound this re-review.\n- **Fresh-reviewer simulation.** Before issuing your v2 verdict, ask: would a reviewer who has only seen this delta (the commits since your last review) with no NACK history ACK this? If you can't argue yes from that diff alone, NACK.\n- **External-bot anchor.** Imagine `egg-reviewer[bot]` reads only this delta (the commits since your last review) with no NACK context. What would it flag? Anything it'd flag, you should NACK first.\n\n**Your v2 verdict must enumerate both halves** so mandate 2 doesn't silently disappear from the record:\n\n- (a) Which v1 blockers you verified-fixed (mandate 1).\n- (b) What new issues you audited-and-did-not-find (mandate 2). Name the specific shapes you checked \u2014 not \"reviewed thoroughly,\" but \"checked for silent fallbacks, doc-snippet executability, API-deprecation, atomicity of file writes.\" If you can't enumerate (b), you haven't done mandate 2.\n\n**Re-reviews are cheap by design.** Your amortized context means the work is \"read the delta, apply your rubric, decide\" \u2014 minutes, not hours. NACK without hesitance; the orchestrator absorbs cycles. Two NACKs on the same producer where the second names new findings is the correct trajectory, not goalpost-moving. The downstream GitHub reviewer should find nothing in this delta. Anything it catches that lives in this cycle's diff is a miss attributable to this re-review.", + "metadata": { + "payload": { + "summary": "Simplifier analysis-draft-human iteration-2 v2 for issue #3393 \u2014 addresses reviewer_refine's sole NACK on v1. Fix: the 'Where decisions stand' naming bullet had dropped the operator's explicit-flag escape hatch, stating a stricter binding rule than ruling (4) actually made; now reads 'named after its primary repo \u2014 the first in the list unless the submitter explicitly marks another as primary' (reviewer's suggested phrasing). No other content changed \u2014 the reviewer verified every other rendering faithful against the iteration-1 directive (hard-bit #3 re-key ruling with no-silent-fallback clause, binding framing, merge-ordering compression, branches/umbrella PRs, test/review scoping, per-repo house rules).", + "attestation": {}, + "artifacts": [ + ".egg-state/drafts/3393-analysis-human.md" + ], + "risk_considered": "Precision-vs-operator-text risk was the defect class here: a binding-decisions section must not narrow an operator ruling. Cross-checked the fix against the directive's exact wording ('first in list unless explicitly flagged'). Also noted from the refiner's parallel NACK that their v4 clobbered my artifact again; my worktree copy is my own lineage (899b1dc40 builds on 397c615f2) and integrity will be re-verified at every future event.", + "commit_sha": "899b1dc40544fcab5550e97312259779b884c6b3", + "files_changed": [ + ".egg-state/drafts/3393-analysis-human.md", + ".egg-state/agent-outputs/simplifier/brc-memory-issue-3393.md" + ], + "tests_run": [], + "tasks_satisfied": [], + "no_changes_needed": false, + "no_changes_reason": "" + }, + "version": 2, + "commit_sha": "899b1dc40544fcab5550e97312259779b884c6b3" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:02:16.361146+00:00", + "phase": "refine" + }, + { + "id": "688b1401-f176-4f", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "reviewer_refine", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "one-shot event handler action=ack (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:02:19.135227+00:00", + "phase": "refine" + }, + { + "id": "819ff60a-e526-4a", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "reviewer_refine", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "context-measure occ=132884 util=0.13 cache_hit=0.96 decision=below_threshold", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:02:21.784514+00:00", + "phase": "refine" + }, + { + "id": "2ad186de-2609-4a", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "simplifier", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: PROPOSED", + "body": "simplifier iteration-2 v2 proposed (commit 899b1dc40): naming bullet now carries the operator's explicit-flag primary-repo escape hatch. Awaiting reviewer_refine re-review; simplifier->refiner edge still owed once refiner's reverted+ratified analysis reaches me for review.", + "metadata": { + "state": "PROPOSED" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:02:22.378559+00:00", + "phase": "refine" + }, + { + "id": "a0b38a4c-f8c9-4d", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "reviewer_agent_design", + "to_role": "refiner", + "message_type": "CONSENSUS_ACK", + "subject": "ACK from reviewer_agent_design for refiner", + "body": "ACK iteration-2 v1 (47c1d9db5). The operator's ratification directive is implemented faithfully and completely: the design-questions section is retitled \"OPERATOR RULINGS (binding)\" with explicit same-standing-as-cq-1 framing and \"planner owns mechanics/spelling only, never the substance\"; rulings 1 (lazy-per-repo work branches/context PRs), 3 (test-gate/reviewer-diff scoped to the slice's repo), 4 (primary-repo naming, per-repo status surfaces), and 5 (per-repo conventions) are marked RATIFIED with substance unchanged; new ruling #6 records the operator's worktree-keying pick verbatim-faithfully \u2014 owner/repo re-key MANDATED, reject-same-name-sets FORBIDDEN (name-uniqueness contradicts arbitrary-N), and prohibitive re-key fan-out at plan time is a new HITL to surface, never a silent fallback to (b). The required consistency knock-ons all landed: correction #2's now-contradictory \"planner picks\" sentence points to ruling #6 with grounding facts intact, AC-2 no longer offers same-name rejection, AC-4 requires the owner/repo keying. The cq-1 fold-in and grounding sections are untouched per the directive, and \"no new HITL decisions induced\" is correct. Ownership discipline held: the refiner commit touched only 3393-analysis.md; the simplifier (397c615f2) rendered the rulings in the human draft, including the new \"Where decisions stand\" section. Non-blocking nit for the simplifier via reviewer_refine (not grounds to hold this proposal): the human draft's \"named after the first repo in the list\" drops the \"unless explicitly flagged\" primary-repo override. From the agent-design lens the refine analysis is complete and binding-decision-clean for planning.", + "metadata": { + "payload": { + "artifact_references": [ + ".egg-state/drafts/3393-analysis.md", + ".egg-state/drafts/3393-analysis-human.md" + ], + "reason": "ACK iteration-2 v1 (47c1d9db5). The operator's ratification directive is implemented faithfully and completely: the design-questions section is retitled \"OPERATOR RULINGS (binding)\" with explicit same-standing-as-cq-1 framing and \"planner owns mechanics/spelling only, never the substance\"; rulings 1 (lazy-per-repo work branches/context PRs), 3 (test-gate/reviewer-diff scoped to the slice's repo), 4 (primary-repo naming, per-repo status surfaces), and 5 (per-repo conventions) are marked RATIFIED with substance unchanged; new ruling #6 records the operator's worktree-keying pick verbatim-faithfully \u2014 owner/repo re-key MANDATED, reject-same-name-sets FORBIDDEN (name-uniqueness contradicts arbitrary-N), and prohibitive re-key fan-out at plan time is a new HITL to surface, never a silent fallback to (b). The required consistency knock-ons all landed: correction #2's now-contradictory \"planner picks\" sentence points to ruling #6 with grounding facts intact, AC-2 no longer offers same-name rejection, AC-4 requires the owner/repo keying. The cq-1 fold-in and grounding sections are untouched per the directive, and \"no new HITL decisions induced\" is correct. Ownership discipline held: the refiner commit touched only 3393-analysis.md; the simplifier (397c615f2) rendered the rulings in the human draft, including the new \"Where decisions stand\" section. Non-blocking nit for the simplifier via reviewer_refine (not grounds to hold this proposal): the human draft's \"named after the first repo in the list\" drops the \"unless explicitly flagged\" primary-repo override. From the agent-design lens the refine analysis is complete and binding-decision-clean for planning.", + "ack_version": 1 + }, + "version": 1 + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:02:25.576924+00:00", + "phase": "refine" + }, + { + "id": "de3ee0b7-ace1-43", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "orchestrator", + "to_role": "refiner", + "message_type": "STATUS", + "subject": "Ready to confirm \u2014 all confirm preconditions satisfied", + "body": "Your proposal (version 1) is ready to confirm \u2014 all blocking reviews are clear and global confirm preconditions are met. Run `egg-orch consensus confirmed` to confirm.", + "metadata": { + "ready_to_confirm": true, + "version": 1 + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:02:25.578133+00:00", + "phase": "refine" + }, + { + "id": "9731cbdb-8ab2-4b", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "refiner", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "CONSENSUS_CONFIRMED", + "subject": "Consensus confirmed by refiner", + "body": "orchestrator-side confirm (#3064 event loop)", + "metadata": {}, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:02:28.571369+00:00", + "phase": "refine" + }, + { + "id": "4b827f36-166c-44", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "reviewer_agent_design", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "CONSENSUS_CONFIRMED", + "subject": "Consensus confirmed by reviewer_agent_design", + "body": "orchestrator-side confirm (#3064 event loop)", + "metadata": {}, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:02:28.573980+00:00", + "phase": "refine" + }, + { + "id": "add83c71-8cf6-48", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "reviewer_refine", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none)", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:02:33.699065+00:00", + "phase": "refine" + }, + { + "id": "46d9e09c-defd-46", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "simplifier", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "context-measure occ=169243 util=0.17 cache_hit=1.00 decision=below_threshold", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:02:34.013378+00:00", + "phase": "refine" + }, + { + "id": "9ebb52d8-738a-41", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "reviewer_agent_design", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "HEARTBEAT", + "subject": "heartbeat: WORKING", + "body": "context-measure occ=144440 util=0.14 cache_hit=0.97 decision=below_threshold", + "metadata": { + "state": "WORKING" + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:02:37.847836+00:00", + "phase": "refine" + }, + { + "id": "54db4c56-62b1-45", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "reviewer_refine", + "to_role": "simplifier", + "message_type": "CONSENSUS_ACK", + "subject": "ACK from reviewer_refine for simplifier", + "body": "v2 fixes the single blocker exactly: the naming bullet now reads \"named after its primary repo \u2014 the first in the list unless the submitter explicitly marks another as primary\", restoring the operator ruling (4) escape hatch that the prior wording dropped (\"first in list unless explicitly flagged\"). The delta touches only that bullet (plus the producer's own memory file), so every other iteration-1 verification stands: hard-bit #3 renders re-key-by-owner/repo with the rejection shortcut ruled out and the escalate-as-new-HITL/no-silent-fallback clause; binding framing matches \"same standing as cq-1\"; merge-ordering compression consistent with the untouched four-element hard-bit #1; branches/umbrella-PRs, per-slice-repo test/review scoping (no cross-repo diff in v1), uniform branch naming, per-repo PR lists, and house rules all faithful. The human summary is now fully consistent with the refiner's v5 OPERATOR RULINGS section, which I ACKed at 47c1d9db5.", + "metadata": { + "payload": { + "artifact_references": [ + ".egg-state/drafts/3393-analysis-human.md" + ], + "reason": "v2 fixes the single blocker exactly: the naming bullet now reads \"named after its primary repo \u2014 the first in the list unless the submitter explicitly marks another as primary\", restoring the operator ruling (4) escape hatch that the prior wording dropped (\"first in list unless explicitly flagged\"). The delta touches only that bullet (plus the producer's own memory file), so every other iteration-1 verification stands: hard-bit #3 renders re-key-by-owner/repo with the rejection shortcut ruled out and the escalate-as-new-HITL/no-silent-fallback clause; binding framing matches \"same standing as cq-1\"; merge-ordering compression consistent with the untouched four-element hard-bit #1; branches/umbrella-PRs, per-slice-repo test/review scoping (no cross-repo diff in v1), uniform branch naming, per-repo PR lists, and house rules all faithful. The human summary is now fully consistent with the refiner's v5 OPERATOR RULINGS section, which I ACKed at 47c1d9db5.", + "ack_version": 2 + }, + "version": 2 + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:02:50.183428+00:00", + "phase": "refine" + }, + { + "id": "eaa860a5-d5e1-4e", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "orchestrator", + "to_role": "simplifier", + "message_type": "STATUS", + "subject": "Ready to confirm \u2014 all confirm preconditions satisfied", + "body": "Your proposal (version 2) is ready to confirm \u2014 all blocking reviews are clear and global confirm preconditions are met. Run `egg-orch consensus confirmed` to confirm.", + "metadata": { + "ready_to_confirm": true, + "version": 2 + }, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:02:50.185559+00:00", + "phase": "refine" + }, + { + "id": "2bf2524b-d5b6-4a", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "simplifier", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "CONSENSUS_CONFIRMED", + "subject": "Consensus confirmed by simplifier", + "body": "orchestrator-side confirm (#3064 event loop)", + "metadata": {}, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:02:54.616986+00:00", + "phase": "refine" + }, + { + "id": "50d001fc-a26f-4b", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "reviewer_refine", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "CONSENSUS_CONFIRMED", + "subject": "Consensus confirmed by reviewer_refine", + "body": "orchestrator-side confirm (#3064 event loop)", + "metadata": {}, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:02:54.620485+00:00", + "phase": "refine" + }, + { + "id": "e57d189a-7af4-45", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "reviewer_agent_design", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "CONSENSUS_CONFIRMED", + "subject": "Consensus confirmed by reviewer_agent_design", + "body": "orchestrator-side confirm (#3064 event loop)", + "metadata": {}, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:02:54.622481+00:00", + "phase": "refine" + }, + { + "id": "527daa57-10f3-47", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "from_role": "first_principles_reviewer", + "to_role": "all", + "message_type": "CONSENSUS_CONFIRMED", + "subject": "Consensus confirmed by first_principles_reviewer", + "body": "orchestrator-side confirm (#3064 event loop)", + "metadata": {}, + "timestamp": "2026-07-02T00:02:54.624742+00:00", + "phase": "refine" + } +] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/.egg-state/brc-history/3393-refine.md b/.egg-state/brc-history/3393-refine.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..1ae3c40f06 --- /dev/null +++ b/.egg-state/brc-history/3393-refine.md @@ -0,0 +1,824 @@ +# BRC Consensus History — refine phase + +Generated: 2026-07-02T00:02:54Z +Pipeline: issue-3393 + +### [2026-07-01T23:58:25Z] overseer (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: d715f336-cd34-42 +phase: refine +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-01T23:58:25Z] refiner (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +one-shot event handler action=propose (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: ce2f660e-90ed-4c +phase: refine +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-01T23:58:26Z] simplifier (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +one-shot event handler action=propose (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: 2ce85a95-fbc2-48 +phase: refine +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-01T23:58:52Z] simplifier (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: 95b1ecb1-6663-45 +phase: refine +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-01T23:59:01Z] refiner (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: c9dcdf88-f7c1-4a +phase: refine +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-01T23:59:28Z] overseer (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +context-measure occ=54347 util=n/a cache_hit=0.96 decision=no_warm_session + +````yaml +id: f629bafa-4839-43 +phase: refine +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:00:07Z] simplifier (CONSENSUS_PROPOSE): Proposal from simplifier + +Simplifier analysis-draft-human, iteration-2 proposal for issue #3393 — renders the operator's four binding rulings in plain language. (1) Hard-bit #3 rewritten: the folder-map collision fix is DECIDED — re-key by full owner/repo; rejecting same-name repo sets is ruled out (it would break the any-number-of-repos promise); if re-keying proves prohibitive that returns to the operator as a new decision, never a silent fallback. (2) New 'Where decisions stand' section marks every design question settled and binding (merge ordering, lazy-per-repo branches/umbrella PRs, owner/repo re-key, single-repo test/review scope, naming + per-repo house rules), closing with 'only a new operator decision can reopen any of these'. The cq-1 fold-in and grounding/good-news sections are untouched per the operator's 'no other changes' instruction. Integrity note: verified the refiner's v3 clobber of this file was fully restored (worktree matched my e88c16d61 exactly) before editing. + +**Adversarial re-review** + +**Your v1 review has TWO equal-weight mandates:** + +1. **Verify named prior blockers were addressed** — confirm the producer fixed what you NACK'd. +2. **Audit the delta since your last review (per REVIEWER-SYNC.md: `git log {last_reviewed_commit}..HEAD --not origin/{base_branch} -p` — the commits landed since the version you last verdicted, NOT the whole accumulated proposal surface) as a fresh reviewer** — ignore your prior NACK history. Read that diff as if you'd never seen the prior version. Apply your lens (security threat-model, concurrency races, contract AC, line-by-line bugs, silent-fallback shapes — whichever your role owns) to the delta itself, not to whether your previous concerns were satisfied. **Mandate 2 is bounded to this delta** — it does NOT ask you to re-traverse the whole accumulated surface from earlier cycles; that work was amortized when you first reviewed those commits. + +Both mandates have equal weight. If (1) passes but (2) finds new issues, you NACK. ACK requires both pass. + +**The named-blockers anchor is a known trap. Every reviewer lens has a mandate-2 in its own territory** — security has newly-introduced threat surfaces, concurrency has newly-introduced races, contract has newly-introduced AC drift, code has newly-introduced line-by-line bugs. The four issues that escaped PR #2724 to the GitHub bot were all of code-lens shape (`${ANSWER}` as bare Python, deprecated `datetime.utcnow()`, non-atomic write, bare `except: pass`) — the persistent reviewer correctly answered mandate 1 ("did prior issues get fixed? yes") and skipped mandate 2 ("does this delta introduce new issues? actually yes"). The shape generalizes: whatever your lens, this delta can introduce issues your prior NACK didn't name. Watching the producer deliver a targeted fix pulls strongly toward "verify my fix-request landed → ACK." Recognize the pull and do mandate 2 anyway. + +**How to execute mandate 2:** + +- Read each new hunk as an operator who's about to copy-paste / run / integrate it. Would this code execute as written? Would these docs send a copy-paster down a working path? +- Apply every rubric pass to the new hunks. New issues outside the scope of your prior NACK are blocking; your prior NACK does not bound this re-review. +- **Fresh-reviewer simulation.** Before issuing your v1 verdict, ask: would a reviewer who has only seen this delta (the commits since your last review) with no NACK history ACK this? If you can't argue yes from that diff alone, NACK. +- **External-bot anchor.** Imagine `egg-reviewer[bot]` reads only this delta (the commits since your last review) with no NACK context. What would it flag? Anything it'd flag, you should NACK first. + +**Your v1 verdict must enumerate both halves** so mandate 2 doesn't silently disappear from the record: + +- (a) Which prior blockers you verified-fixed (mandate 1). +- (b) What new issues you audited-and-did-not-find (mandate 2). Name the specific shapes you checked — not "reviewed thoroughly," but "checked for silent fallbacks, doc-snippet executability, API-deprecation, atomicity of file writes." If you can't enumerate (b), you haven't done mandate 2. + +**Re-reviews are cheap by design.** Your amortized context means the work is "read the delta, apply your rubric, decide" — minutes, not hours. NACK without hesitance; the orchestrator absorbs cycles. Two NACKs on the same producer where the second names new findings is the correct trajectory, not goalpost-moving. The downstream GitHub reviewer should find nothing in this delta. Anything it catches that lives in this cycle's diff is a miss attributable to this re-review. + +````yaml +id: 7da6adba-d632-44 +phase: refine +metadata: + payload: + summary: "Simplifier analysis-draft-human, iteration-2 proposal for issue #3393\ + \ \u2014 renders the operator's four binding rulings in plain language. (1)\ + \ Hard-bit #3 rewritten: the folder-map collision fix is DECIDED \u2014 re-key\ + \ by full owner/repo; rejecting same-name repo sets is ruled out (it would break\ + \ the any-number-of-repos promise); if re-keying proves prohibitive that returns\ + \ to the operator as a new decision, never a silent fallback. (2) New 'Where\ + \ decisions stand' section marks every design question settled and binding (merge\ + \ ordering, lazy-per-repo branches/umbrella PRs, owner/repo re-key, single-repo\ + \ test/review scope, naming + per-repo house rules), closing with 'only a new\ + \ operator decision can reopen any of these'. The cq-1 fold-in and grounding/good-news\ + \ sections are untouched per the operator's 'no other changes' instruction.\ + \ Integrity note: verified the refiner's v3 clobber of this file was fully restored\ + \ (worktree matched my e88c16d61 exactly) before editing." + attestation: {} + artifacts: + - .egg-state/drafts/3393-analysis-human.md + risk_considered: "Directive-conflict risk: the operator's ruling (a) supersedes\ + \ my draft's prior 're-key or reject' either/or framing \u2014 fixed, with the\ + \ ruled-out option explicitly named so no reader resurrects it. Faithfulness:\ + \ refiner's ratification fold-in (their v4) is pending; my rendering derives\ + \ from the operator's directive text itself, the shared source of truth, and\ + \ a recheck obligation is logged. Clobber risk: refiner v3 overwrote this artifact\ + \ once already; verified restoration to my exact prior content before building\ + \ on it." + commit_sha: 397c615f2d66905c9b084659a7e4631c0f4aed29 + files_changed: + - .egg-state/drafts/3393-analysis-human.md + - .egg-state/agent-outputs/simplifier/brc-memory-issue-3393.md + tests_run: [] + tasks_satisfied: [] + no_changes_needed: false + no_changes_reason: '' + version: 1 + commit_sha: 397c615f2d66905c9b084659a7e4631c0f4aed29 +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:00:11Z] reviewer_refine (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +one-shot event handler action=ack (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: b84d446d-44df-4c +phase: refine +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:00:15Z] simplifier (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: PROPOSED + +simplifier analysis-draft-human iteration-2 proposed (commit 397c615f2, v1): four operator ratifications rendered — owner/repo re-key decided (rejection ruled out), 'Where decisions stand' section added. Awaiting reviewer_refine; simplifier->refiner edge still owed when refiner's ratification fold-in lands. + +````yaml +id: 0428bc14-7d40-48 +phase: refine +metadata: + state: PROPOSED +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:00:29Z] reviewer_refine (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: 01607277-495e-41 +phase: refine +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:00:30Z] simplifier (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +context-measure occ=157555 util=0.16 cache_hit=1.00 decision=below_threshold + +````yaml +id: 27e62327-4919-47 +phase: refine +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:00:54Z] refiner (CONSENSUS_PROPOSE): Proposal from refiner + +Refine analysis v5 for issue #3393 — records the operator's iteration-1 rulings as BINDING decisions per the gate directive. The "Design questions" section is retitled "OPERATOR RULINGS (binding)" with an explicit preamble giving items the same standing as the cq-1 HITL resolution — ratified rulings, not recommendations the planner may revisit (planner owns mechanics/spelling only). (1) Work-branch/context-PR model RATIFIED: lazy-per-repo — every repo with ≥1 slice gets its own egg//work branch and context PR; sliceless repos get neither; single-slice repos still get the standard context PR. (2) NEW ruling #6, worktree-keying collision: option (a) MANDATED — re-key the agent-facing repo→path map by full owner/repo; the (b) reject-same-name-sets shortcut is FORBIDDEN (name-uniqueness at submission contradicts arbitrary-N); if re-key fan-out proves prohibitive at plan time that is a new HITL to surface, never a silent fallback. (3) Test-gate/reviewer-diff scoping RATIFIED (slice's repo worktree only, no cross-repo diff surface in v1). (4) Naming/status surfaces + per-repo conventions RATIFIED (primary-repo pipeline naming, uniform branch naming, per-repo PR lists, slice agents under the slice repo's CLAUDE.md/linters/check commands). Consistency-only knock-ons where old option language contradicted the rulings: grounding correction #2's advice sentence now points to ruling #6 (the grounding FACTS — bare-name keying, file:line — are untouched; leaving "planner picks / (b) acceptable" would contradict the operator verbatim), AC-2 no longer offers same-name rejection, AC-4 requires owner/repo keying. The cq-1 fold-in and all grounding verdicts are byte-identical per the directive's "do not alter" clause. Human summary untouched (simplifier-owned; their iteration-2 commit 397c615f2 renders the ratifications — rebased onto it, no conflict). No new HITL decisions induced by the rulings. + +**Adversarial re-review** + +**Your v1 review has TWO equal-weight mandates:** + +1. **Verify named prior blockers were addressed** — confirm the producer fixed what you NACK'd. +2. **Audit the delta since your last review (per REVIEWER-SYNC.md: `git log {last_reviewed_commit}..HEAD --not origin/{base_branch} -p` — the commits landed since the version you last verdicted, NOT the whole accumulated proposal surface) as a fresh reviewer** — ignore your prior NACK history. Read that diff as if you'd never seen the prior version. Apply your lens (security threat-model, concurrency races, contract AC, line-by-line bugs, silent-fallback shapes — whichever your role owns) to the delta itself, not to whether your previous concerns were satisfied. **Mandate 2 is bounded to this delta** — it does NOT ask you to re-traverse the whole accumulated surface from earlier cycles; that work was amortized when you first reviewed those commits. + +Both mandates have equal weight. If (1) passes but (2) finds new issues, you NACK. ACK requires both pass. + +**The named-blockers anchor is a known trap. Every reviewer lens has a mandate-2 in its own territory** — security has newly-introduced threat surfaces, concurrency has newly-introduced races, contract has newly-introduced AC drift, code has newly-introduced line-by-line bugs. The four issues that escaped PR #2724 to the GitHub bot were all of code-lens shape (`${ANSWER}` as bare Python, deprecated `datetime.utcnow()`, non-atomic write, bare `except: pass`) — the persistent reviewer correctly answered mandate 1 ("did prior issues get fixed? yes") and skipped mandate 2 ("does this delta introduce new issues? actually yes"). The shape generalizes: whatever your lens, this delta can introduce issues your prior NACK didn't name. Watching the producer deliver a targeted fix pulls strongly toward "verify my fix-request landed → ACK." Recognize the pull and do mandate 2 anyway. + +**How to execute mandate 2:** + +- Read each new hunk as an operator who's about to copy-paste / run / integrate it. Would this code execute as written? Would these docs send a copy-paster down a working path? +- Apply every rubric pass to the new hunks. New issues outside the scope of your prior NACK are blocking; your prior NACK does not bound this re-review. +- **Fresh-reviewer simulation.** Before issuing your v1 verdict, ask: would a reviewer who has only seen this delta (the commits since your last review) with no NACK history ACK this? If you can't argue yes from that diff alone, NACK. +- **External-bot anchor.** Imagine `egg-reviewer[bot]` reads only this delta (the commits since your last review) with no NACK context. What would it flag? Anything it'd flag, you should NACK first. + +**Your v1 verdict must enumerate both halves** so mandate 2 doesn't silently disappear from the record: + +- (a) Which prior blockers you verified-fixed (mandate 1). +- (b) What new issues you audited-and-did-not-find (mandate 2). Name the specific shapes you checked — not "reviewed thoroughly," but "checked for silent fallbacks, doc-snippet executability, API-deprecation, atomicity of file writes." If you can't enumerate (b), you haven't done mandate 2. + +**Re-reviews are cheap by design.** Your amortized context means the work is "read the delta, apply your rubric, decide" — minutes, not hours. NACK without hesitance; the orchestrator absorbs cycles. Two NACKs on the same producer where the second names new findings is the correct trajectory, not goalpost-moving. The downstream GitHub reviewer should find nothing in this delta. Anything it catches that lives in this cycle's diff is a miss attributable to this re-review. + +````yaml +id: 72572cf0-be96-4c +phase: refine +metadata: + payload: + summary: "Refine analysis v5 for issue #3393 \u2014 records the operator's iteration-1\ + \ rulings as BINDING decisions per the gate directive. The \"Design questions\"\ + \ section is retitled \"OPERATOR RULINGS (binding)\" with an explicit preamble\ + \ giving items the same standing as the cq-1 HITL resolution \u2014 ratified\ + \ rulings, not recommendations the planner may revisit (planner owns mechanics/spelling\ + \ only). (1) Work-branch/context-PR model RATIFIED: lazy-per-repo \u2014 every\ + \ repo with \u22651 slice gets its own egg//work branch and context PR;\ + \ sliceless repos get neither; single-slice repos still get the standard context\ + \ PR. (2) NEW ruling #6, worktree-keying collision: option (a) MANDATED \u2014\ + \ re-key the agent-facing repo\u2192path map by full owner/repo; the (b) reject-same-name-sets\ + \ shortcut is FORBIDDEN (name-uniqueness at submission contradicts arbitrary-N);\ + \ if re-key fan-out proves prohibitive at plan time that is a new HITL to surface,\ + \ never a silent fallback. (3) Test-gate/reviewer-diff scoping RATIFIED (slice's\ + \ repo worktree only, no cross-repo diff surface in v1). (4) Naming/status surfaces\ + \ + per-repo conventions RATIFIED (primary-repo pipeline naming, uniform branch\ + \ naming, per-repo PR lists, slice agents under the slice repo's CLAUDE.md/linters/check\ + \ commands). Consistency-only knock-ons where old option language contradicted\ + \ the rulings: grounding correction #2's advice sentence now points to ruling\ + \ #6 (the grounding FACTS \u2014 bare-name keying, file:line \u2014 are untouched;\ + \ leaving \"planner picks / (b) acceptable\" would contradict the operator verbatim),\ + \ AC-2 no longer offers same-name rejection, AC-4 requires owner/repo keying.\ + \ The cq-1 fold-in and all grounding verdicts are byte-identical per the directive's\ + \ \"do not alter\" clause. Human summary untouched (simplifier-owned; their\ + \ iteration-2 commit 397c615f2 renders the ratifications \u2014 rebased onto\ + \ it, no conflict). No new HITL decisions induced by the rulings." + attestation: {} + artifacts: + - .egg-state/drafts/3393-analysis.md + - .egg-state/drafts/3393-analysis-human.md + risk_considered: "Fidelity: each ruling is recorded with the operator's own constraints\ + \ (forbidden fallback, HITL-on-prohibitive-fan-out) rather than paraphrased\ + \ loosely. Directive-compliance tension addressed explicitly: the \"do not alter\ + \ the grounding sections\" clause was read as protecting verified facts, not\ + \ as preserving the now-contradicted option-choice sentence in correction #2\ + \ \u2014 that one sentence was redirected to ruling #6 and the change is flagged\ + \ for reviewers to judge; all grounding facts and the cq-1 material are byte-identical.\ + \ Ownership: human summary untouched (v3 clobber lesson); rebased cleanly onto\ + \ the simplifier's iteration-2 rendering." + commit_sha: 47c1d9db5 + files_changed: + - .egg-state/drafts/3393-analysis.md + - .egg-state/agent-outputs/refiner/brc-memory-issue-3393.md + tests_run: [] + tasks_satisfied: [] + no_changes_needed: false + no_changes_reason: '' + version: 1 + commit_sha: 47c1d9db5 +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:00:59Z] reviewer_refine (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +one-shot event handler action=ack (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: 6bf95ae5-30b0-47 +phase: refine +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:01:01Z] reviewer_agent_design (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +one-shot event handler action=ack (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: 9d7ae748-bce2-48 +phase: refine +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:01:02Z] first_principles_reviewer (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +one-shot event handler action=ack (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: 00063f5c-28c4-43 +phase: refine +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:01:03Z] refiner (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: PROPOSED + +refiner v5 proposal for issue-3393 refine phase recorded at 47c1d9db5 — iteration-1 operator rulings recorded as binding (ratified items 1/3/4/5 + new owner/repo re-key mandate); cq-1 and grounding untouched; awaiting re-review + +````yaml +id: 7ea8afaf-feb8-4d +phase: refine +metadata: + state: PROPOSED +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:01:03Z] refiner (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: 1340accd-2532-4b +phase: refine +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:01:13Z] reviewer_refine → simplifier (CONSENSUS_NACK): NACK from reviewer_refine for simplifier + +One-phrase fix, otherwise ACK-ready. In "Where decisions stand", the naming bullet says the pipeline "is named after the first repo in the list" — but the operator's ruling (4) is "pipeline id keys off the primary repo (first in list UNLESS EXPLICITLY FLAGGED)". Dropping the explicit-flag escape hatch states a stricter binding rule than the operator made, in a section that tells the reader only a new operator decision can reopen these; a submitter CAN designate a different primary repo. Fix: e.g. "the pipeline is named after its primary repo — the first in the list unless the submitter explicitly marks another as primary". Everything else verified faithful against the iteration-1 directive: hard-bit #3 correctly renders re-key-by-owner/repo with the rejection shortcut ruled out (right rationale: it would break the any-number-of-repos promise) and the escalate-as-new-decision/no-silent-fallback clause; the binding framing matches "same standing as cq-1, not recommendations the planner may revisit"; merge-ordering compression is consistent with the untouched four-element hard-bit #1; branches/umbrella-PRs, test/review scoping (no cross-repo diff in v1), uniform branch naming, per-repo PR lists, and house rules all match. Net delta vs your ACKed e88c16d state is exactly this commit; nothing previously ACKed was disturbed. + +````yaml +id: ca70e9e3-50c6-4e +phase: refine +metadata: + payload: + reason: "One-phrase fix, otherwise ACK-ready. In \"Where decisions stand\", the\ + \ naming bullet says the pipeline \"is named after the first repo in the list\"\ + \ \u2014 but the operator's ruling (4) is \"pipeline id keys off the primary\ + \ repo (first in list UNLESS EXPLICITLY FLAGGED)\". Dropping the explicit-flag\ + \ escape hatch states a stricter binding rule than the operator made, in a section\ + \ that tells the reader only a new operator decision can reopen these; a submitter\ + \ CAN designate a different primary repo. Fix: e.g. \"the pipeline is named\ + \ after its primary repo \u2014 the first in the list unless the submitter explicitly\ + \ marks another as primary\". Everything else verified faithful against the\ + \ iteration-1 directive: hard-bit #3 correctly renders re-key-by-owner/repo\ + \ with the rejection shortcut ruled out (right rationale: it would break the\ + \ any-number-of-repos promise) and the escalate-as-new-decision/no-silent-fallback\ + \ clause; the binding framing matches \"same standing as cq-1, not recommendations\ + \ the planner may revisit\"; merge-ordering compression is consistent with the\ + \ untouched four-element hard-bit #1; branches/umbrella-PRs, test/review scoping\ + \ (no cross-repo diff in v1), uniform branch naming, per-repo PR lists, and\ + \ house rules all match. Net delta vs your ACKed e88c16d state is exactly this\ + \ commit; nothing previously ACKed was disturbed." + artifact_references: + - .egg-state/drafts/3393-analysis-human.md + nack_version: 1 + reason: "One-phrase fix, otherwise ACK-ready. In \"Where decisions stand\", the\ + \ naming bullet says the pipeline \"is named after the first repo in the list\"\ + \ \u2014 but the operator's ruling (4) is \"pipeline id keys off the primary repo\ + \ (first in list UNLESS EXPLICITLY FLAGGED)\". Dropping the explicit-flag escape\ + \ hatch states a stricter binding rule than the operator made, in a section that\ + \ tells the reader only a new operator decision can reopen these; a submitter\ + \ CAN designate a different primary repo. Fix: e.g. \"the pipeline is named after\ + \ its primary repo \u2014 the first in the list unless the submitter explicitly\ + \ marks another as primary\". Everything else verified faithful against the iteration-1\ + \ directive: hard-bit #3 correctly renders re-key-by-owner/repo with the rejection\ + \ shortcut ruled out (right rationale: it would break the any-number-of-repos\ + \ promise) and the escalate-as-new-decision/no-silent-fallback clause; the binding\ + \ framing matches \"same standing as cq-1, not recommendations the planner may\ + \ revisit\"; merge-ordering compression is consistent with the untouched four-element\ + \ hard-bit #1; branches/umbrella-PRs, test/review scoping (no cross-repo diff\ + \ in v1), uniform branch naming, per-repo PR lists, and house rules all match.\ + \ Net delta vs your ACKed e88c16d state is exactly this commit; nothing previously\ + \ ACKed was disturbed." + revision_count: 1 +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:01:14Z] first_principles_reviewer (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: 4a29a9e9-1b3c-41 +phase: refine +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:01:15Z] reviewer_agent_design (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: f96aa391-ef0b-47 +phase: refine +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:01:17Z] refiner (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +context-measure occ=214506 util=0.21 cache_hit=1.00 decision=below_threshold + +````yaml +id: 4d860dea-a544-4e +phase: refine +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:01:19Z] simplifier (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +one-shot event handler action=propose (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: dc0411f0-3cd8-44 +phase: refine +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:01:19Z] reviewer_refine (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: ce040f8c-fb2b-45 +phase: refine +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:01:20Z] reviewer_refine (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +one-shot event handler action=ack (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: 158d13e6-c7f7-49 +phase: refine +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:01:32Z] simplifier (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: 1d4a89ae-a9f4-4b +phase: refine +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:01:34Z] reviewer_refine (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: 3db6f34e-8639-4f +phase: refine +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:02:01Z] first_principles_reviewer → refiner (CONSENSUS_ACK): ACK from first_principles_reviewer for refiner + +v5 (47c1d9db5) is a faithful, complete implementation of the iteration-1 operator directive. All four rulings recorded as BINDING with cq-1 standing: (1) lazy-per-repo work-branch/context-PR model RATIFIED (item 1, substance unchanged); (2) worktree-keying ruling #6 captures all three elements essentially verbatim — owner/repo re-key mandated, reject-same-name-sets forbidden as contradicting arbitrary-N, prohibitive fan-out surfaces as a NEW HITL never a silent fallback; (3) test-gate/reviewer-diff scoping RATIFIED (item 3); (4) naming/status surfaces + per-repo conventions RATIFIED (items 4/5). Status upgrade done right: section retitled "OPERATOR RULINGS (binding)" with the planner restricted to mechanics only. Consistency knock-ons verified necessary and minimal: correction #2's stale planner-picks language now defers to ruling #6 with grounding FACTS untouched; AC-2 drops the forbidden same-name-rejection alternative; AC-4 mandates owner/repo keying. Directive constraints respected: cq-1 fold-in appears in no hunk (byte-unchanged); grounding verdicts/evidence untouched; the human doc was modified only by the simplifier's own commit (ownership respected) and its "Where decisions stand" section faithfully renders all rulings including the return-to-operator escalation path. "No new HITL decisions induced" remains correct. Analysis is operator-directive-compliant and ready for the planner. + +````yaml +id: 58eab55c-0b7b-4b +phase: refine +metadata: + payload: + artifact_references: + - .egg-state/drafts/3393-analysis.md + - .egg-state/drafts/3393-analysis-human.md + reason: "v5 (47c1d9db5) is a faithful, complete implementation of the iteration-1\ + \ operator directive. All four rulings recorded as BINDING with cq-1 standing:\ + \ (1) lazy-per-repo work-branch/context-PR model RATIFIED (item 1, substance\ + \ unchanged); (2) worktree-keying ruling #6 captures all three elements essentially\ + \ verbatim \u2014 owner/repo re-key mandated, reject-same-name-sets forbidden\ + \ as contradicting arbitrary-N, prohibitive fan-out surfaces as a NEW HITL never\ + \ a silent fallback; (3) test-gate/reviewer-diff scoping RATIFIED (item 3);\ + \ (4) naming/status surfaces + per-repo conventions RATIFIED (items 4/5). Status\ + \ upgrade done right: section retitled \"OPERATOR RULINGS (binding)\" with the\ + \ planner restricted to mechanics only. Consistency knock-ons verified necessary\ + \ and minimal: correction #2's stale planner-picks language now defers to ruling\ + \ #6 with grounding FACTS untouched; AC-2 drops the forbidden same-name-rejection\ + \ alternative; AC-4 mandates owner/repo keying. Directive constraints respected:\ + \ cq-1 fold-in appears in no hunk (byte-unchanged); grounding verdicts/evidence\ + \ untouched; the human doc was modified only by the simplifier's own commit\ + \ (ownership respected) and its \"Where decisions stand\" section faithfully\ + \ renders all rulings including the return-to-operator escalation path. \"No\ + \ new HITL decisions induced\" remains correct. Analysis is operator-directive-compliant\ + \ and ready for the planner." + ack_version: 1 + version: 1 +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:02:04Z] first_principles_reviewer (CONSENSUS_CONFIRMED): Consensus confirmed by first_principles_reviewer + +orchestrator-side confirm (#3064 event loop) + +````yaml +id: af38c49d-696c-4c +phase: refine +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:02:08Z] reviewer_refine → refiner (CONSENSUS_ACK): ACK from reviewer_refine for refiner + +Faithful, complete recording of the iteration-1 operator rulings as BINDING. Section retitled "OPERATOR RULINGS (binding)" with an explicit same-standing-as-cq-1 preamble (planner owns mechanics only); items 1/3/4/5 marked RATIFIED with substance preserved verbatim; new ruling #6 carries all three elements of the operator's worktree-keying decision (re-key by full owner/repo; reject-same-name-sets FORBIDDEN as contradicting arbitrary-N; prohibitive fan-out at plan time is a new HITL, never a silent fallback to (b)). The knock-on edits to correction #2's advice sentence, AC-2, and AC-4 are necessary consistency fixes — the old option-(a)/(b) language would have contradicted the binding ruling — and the grounding FACTS are untouched, satisfying the directive's "do not alter cq-1 fold-in or grounding" constraint in substance (change transparently declared in commit message and decision log). cq-1 section appears only as unchanged diff context. Human summary untouched by this producer (ownership respected; simplifier rendered the ratifications on their own edge). No new HITL decisions induced, correctly — the rulings close options rather than open them. + +````yaml +id: cd2232a5-a76a-41 +phase: refine +metadata: + payload: + artifact_references: + - .egg-state/drafts/3393-analysis.md + - .egg-state/drafts/3393-analysis-human.md + reason: "Faithful, complete recording of the iteration-1 operator rulings as BINDING.\ + \ Section retitled \"OPERATOR RULINGS (binding)\" with an explicit same-standing-as-cq-1\ + \ preamble (planner owns mechanics only); items 1/3/4/5 marked RATIFIED with\ + \ substance preserved verbatim; new ruling #6 carries all three elements of\ + \ the operator's worktree-keying decision (re-key by full owner/repo; reject-same-name-sets\ + \ FORBIDDEN as contradicting arbitrary-N; prohibitive fan-out at plan time is\ + \ a new HITL, never a silent fallback to (b)). The knock-on edits to correction\ + \ #2's advice sentence, AC-2, and AC-4 are necessary consistency fixes \u2014\ + \ the old option-(a)/(b) language would have contradicted the binding ruling\ + \ \u2014 and the grounding FACTS are untouched, satisfying the directive's \"\ + do not alter cq-1 fold-in or grounding\" constraint in substance (change transparently\ + \ declared in commit message and decision log). cq-1 section appears only as\ + \ unchanged diff context. Human summary untouched by this producer (ownership\ + \ respected; simplifier rendered the ratifications on their own edge). No new\ + \ HITL decisions induced, correctly \u2014 the rulings close options rather\ + \ than open them." + ack_version: 1 + version: 1 +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:02:12Z] first_principles_reviewer (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +context-measure occ=141358 util=0.14 cache_hit=0.97 decision=below_threshold + +````yaml +id: 146aad5f-1692-45 +phase: refine +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:02:16Z] simplifier (CONSENSUS_PROPOSE): Proposal from simplifier + +Simplifier analysis-draft-human iteration-2 v2 for issue #3393 — addresses reviewer_refine's sole NACK on v1. Fix: the 'Where decisions stand' naming bullet had dropped the operator's explicit-flag escape hatch, stating a stricter binding rule than ruling (4) actually made; now reads 'named after its primary repo — the first in the list unless the submitter explicitly marks another as primary' (reviewer's suggested phrasing). No other content changed — the reviewer verified every other rendering faithful against the iteration-1 directive (hard-bit #3 re-key ruling with no-silent-fallback clause, binding framing, merge-ordering compression, branches/umbrella PRs, test/review scoping, per-repo house rules). + +**Adversarial re-review** + +**Your v2 review has TWO equal-weight mandates:** + +1. **Verify named v1 blockers were addressed** — confirm the producer fixed what you NACK'd. +2. **Audit the delta since your last review (per REVIEWER-SYNC.md: `git log {last_reviewed_commit}..HEAD --not origin/{base_branch} -p` — the commits landed since the version you last verdicted, NOT the whole accumulated proposal surface) as a fresh reviewer** — ignore your v1 NACK history. Read that diff as if you'd never seen the prior version. Apply your lens (security threat-model, concurrency races, contract AC, line-by-line bugs, silent-fallback shapes — whichever your role owns) to the delta itself, not to whether your previous concerns were satisfied. **Mandate 2 is bounded to this delta** — it does NOT ask you to re-traverse the whole accumulated surface from earlier cycles; that work was amortized when you first reviewed those commits. + +Both mandates have equal weight. If (1) passes but (2) finds new issues, you NACK. ACK requires both pass. + +**The named-blockers anchor is a known trap. Every reviewer lens has a mandate-2 in its own territory** — security has newly-introduced threat surfaces, concurrency has newly-introduced races, contract has newly-introduced AC drift, code has newly-introduced line-by-line bugs. The four issues that escaped PR #2724 to the GitHub bot were all of code-lens shape (`${ANSWER}` as bare Python, deprecated `datetime.utcnow()`, non-atomic write, bare `except: pass`) — the persistent reviewer correctly answered mandate 1 ("did prior issues get fixed? yes") and skipped mandate 2 ("does this delta introduce new issues? actually yes"). The shape generalizes: whatever your lens, this delta can introduce issues your prior NACK didn't name. Watching the producer deliver a targeted fix pulls strongly toward "verify my fix-request landed → ACK." Recognize the pull and do mandate 2 anyway. + +**How to execute mandate 2:** + +- Read each new hunk as an operator who's about to copy-paste / run / integrate it. Would this code execute as written? Would these docs send a copy-paster down a working path? +- Apply every rubric pass to the new hunks. New issues outside the scope of your prior NACK are blocking; your prior NACK does not bound this re-review. +- **Fresh-reviewer simulation.** Before issuing your v2 verdict, ask: would a reviewer who has only seen this delta (the commits since your last review) with no NACK history ACK this? If you can't argue yes from that diff alone, NACK. +- **External-bot anchor.** Imagine `egg-reviewer[bot]` reads only this delta (the commits since your last review) with no NACK context. What would it flag? Anything it'd flag, you should NACK first. + +**Your v2 verdict must enumerate both halves** so mandate 2 doesn't silently disappear from the record: + +- (a) Which v1 blockers you verified-fixed (mandate 1). +- (b) What new issues you audited-and-did-not-find (mandate 2). Name the specific shapes you checked — not "reviewed thoroughly," but "checked for silent fallbacks, doc-snippet executability, API-deprecation, atomicity of file writes." If you can't enumerate (b), you haven't done mandate 2. + +**Re-reviews are cheap by design.** Your amortized context means the work is "read the delta, apply your rubric, decide" — minutes, not hours. NACK without hesitance; the orchestrator absorbs cycles. Two NACKs on the same producer where the second names new findings is the correct trajectory, not goalpost-moving. The downstream GitHub reviewer should find nothing in this delta. Anything it catches that lives in this cycle's diff is a miss attributable to this re-review. + +````yaml +id: 6873ca69-6a03-4f +phase: refine +metadata: + payload: + summary: "Simplifier analysis-draft-human iteration-2 v2 for issue #3393 \u2014\ + \ addresses reviewer_refine's sole NACK on v1. Fix: the 'Where decisions stand'\ + \ naming bullet had dropped the operator's explicit-flag escape hatch, stating\ + \ a stricter binding rule than ruling (4) actually made; now reads 'named after\ + \ its primary repo \u2014 the first in the list unless the submitter explicitly\ + \ marks another as primary' (reviewer's suggested phrasing). No other content\ + \ changed \u2014 the reviewer verified every other rendering faithful against\ + \ the iteration-1 directive (hard-bit #3 re-key ruling with no-silent-fallback\ + \ clause, binding framing, merge-ordering compression, branches/umbrella PRs,\ + \ test/review scoping, per-repo house rules)." + attestation: {} + artifacts: + - .egg-state/drafts/3393-analysis-human.md + risk_considered: 'Precision-vs-operator-text risk was the defect class here: a + binding-decisions section must not narrow an operator ruling. Cross-checked + the fix against the directive''s exact wording (''first in list unless explicitly + flagged''). Also noted from the refiner''s parallel NACK that their v4 clobbered + my artifact again; my worktree copy is my own lineage (899b1dc40 builds on 397c615f2) + and integrity will be re-verified at every future event.' + commit_sha: 899b1dc40544fcab5550e97312259779b884c6b3 + files_changed: + - .egg-state/drafts/3393-analysis-human.md + - .egg-state/agent-outputs/simplifier/brc-memory-issue-3393.md + tests_run: [] + tasks_satisfied: [] + no_changes_needed: false + no_changes_reason: '' + version: 2 + commit_sha: 899b1dc40544fcab5550e97312259779b884c6b3 +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:02:19Z] reviewer_refine (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +one-shot event handler action=ack (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: 688b1401-f176-4f +phase: refine +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:02:21Z] reviewer_refine (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +context-measure occ=132884 util=0.13 cache_hit=0.96 decision=below_threshold + +````yaml +id: 819ff60a-e526-4a +phase: refine +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:02:22Z] simplifier (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: PROPOSED + +simplifier iteration-2 v2 proposed (commit 899b1dc40): naming bullet now carries the operator's explicit-flag primary-repo escape hatch. Awaiting reviewer_refine re-review; simplifier->refiner edge still owed once refiner's reverted+ratified analysis reaches me for review. + +````yaml +id: 2ad186de-2609-4a +phase: refine +metadata: + state: PROPOSED +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:02:25Z] reviewer_agent_design → refiner (CONSENSUS_ACK): ACK from reviewer_agent_design for refiner + +ACK iteration-2 v1 (47c1d9db5). The operator's ratification directive is implemented faithfully and completely: the design-questions section is retitled "OPERATOR RULINGS (binding)" with explicit same-standing-as-cq-1 framing and "planner owns mechanics/spelling only, never the substance"; rulings 1 (lazy-per-repo work branches/context PRs), 3 (test-gate/reviewer-diff scoped to the slice's repo), 4 (primary-repo naming, per-repo status surfaces), and 5 (per-repo conventions) are marked RATIFIED with substance unchanged; new ruling #6 records the operator's worktree-keying pick verbatim-faithfully — owner/repo re-key MANDATED, reject-same-name-sets FORBIDDEN (name-uniqueness contradicts arbitrary-N), and prohibitive re-key fan-out at plan time is a new HITL to surface, never a silent fallback to (b). The required consistency knock-ons all landed: correction #2's now-contradictory "planner picks" sentence points to ruling #6 with grounding facts intact, AC-2 no longer offers same-name rejection, AC-4 requires the owner/repo keying. The cq-1 fold-in and grounding sections are untouched per the directive, and "no new HITL decisions induced" is correct. Ownership discipline held: the refiner commit touched only 3393-analysis.md; the simplifier (397c615f2) rendered the rulings in the human draft, including the new "Where decisions stand" section. Non-blocking nit for the simplifier via reviewer_refine (not grounds to hold this proposal): the human draft's "named after the first repo in the list" drops the "unless explicitly flagged" primary-repo override. From the agent-design lens the refine analysis is complete and binding-decision-clean for planning. + +````yaml +id: a0b38a4c-f8c9-4d +phase: refine +metadata: + payload: + artifact_references: + - .egg-state/drafts/3393-analysis.md + - .egg-state/drafts/3393-analysis-human.md + reason: "ACK iteration-2 v1 (47c1d9db5). The operator's ratification directive\ + \ is implemented faithfully and completely: the design-questions section is\ + \ retitled \"OPERATOR RULINGS (binding)\" with explicit same-standing-as-cq-1\ + \ framing and \"planner owns mechanics/spelling only, never the substance\"\ + ; rulings 1 (lazy-per-repo work branches/context PRs), 3 (test-gate/reviewer-diff\ + \ scoped to the slice's repo), 4 (primary-repo naming, per-repo status surfaces),\ + \ and 5 (per-repo conventions) are marked RATIFIED with substance unchanged;\ + \ new ruling #6 records the operator's worktree-keying pick verbatim-faithfully\ + \ \u2014 owner/repo re-key MANDATED, reject-same-name-sets FORBIDDEN (name-uniqueness\ + \ contradicts arbitrary-N), and prohibitive re-key fan-out at plan time is a\ + \ new HITL to surface, never a silent fallback to (b). The required consistency\ + \ knock-ons all landed: correction #2's now-contradictory \"planner picks\"\ + \ sentence points to ruling #6 with grounding facts intact, AC-2 no longer offers\ + \ same-name rejection, AC-4 requires the owner/repo keying. The cq-1 fold-in\ + \ and grounding sections are untouched per the directive, and \"no new HITL\ + \ decisions induced\" is correct. Ownership discipline held: the refiner commit\ + \ touched only 3393-analysis.md; the simplifier (397c615f2) rendered the rulings\ + \ in the human draft, including the new \"Where decisions stand\" section. Non-blocking\ + \ nit for the simplifier via reviewer_refine (not grounds to hold this proposal):\ + \ the human draft's \"named after the first repo in the list\" drops the \"\ + unless explicitly flagged\" primary-repo override. From the agent-design lens\ + \ the refine analysis is complete and binding-decision-clean for planning." + ack_version: 1 + version: 1 +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:02:25Z] orchestrator → refiner (STATUS): Ready to confirm — all confirm preconditions satisfied + +Your proposal (version 1) is ready to confirm — all blocking reviews are clear and global confirm preconditions are met. Run `egg-orch consensus confirmed` to confirm. + +````yaml +id: de3ee0b7-ace1-43 +phase: refine +metadata: + ready_to_confirm: true + version: 1 +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:02:28Z] refiner (CONSENSUS_CONFIRMED): Consensus confirmed by refiner + +orchestrator-side confirm (#3064 event loop) + +````yaml +id: 9731cbdb-8ab2-4b +phase: refine +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:02:28Z] reviewer_agent_design (CONSENSUS_CONFIRMED): Consensus confirmed by reviewer_agent_design + +orchestrator-side confirm (#3064 event loop) + +````yaml +id: 4b827f36-166c-44 +phase: refine +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:02:33Z] reviewer_refine (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +in-tool-loop liveness (slice=none) + +````yaml +id: add83c71-8cf6-48 +phase: refine +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:02:34Z] simplifier (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +context-measure occ=169243 util=0.17 cache_hit=1.00 decision=below_threshold + +````yaml +id: 46d9e09c-defd-46 +phase: refine +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:02:37Z] reviewer_agent_design (HEARTBEAT): heartbeat: WORKING + +context-measure occ=144440 util=0.14 cache_hit=0.97 decision=below_threshold + +````yaml +id: 9ebb52d8-738a-41 +phase: refine +metadata: + state: WORKING +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:02:50Z] reviewer_refine → simplifier (CONSENSUS_ACK): ACK from reviewer_refine for simplifier + +v2 fixes the single blocker exactly: the naming bullet now reads "named after its primary repo — the first in the list unless the submitter explicitly marks another as primary", restoring the operator ruling (4) escape hatch that the prior wording dropped ("first in list unless explicitly flagged"). The delta touches only that bullet (plus the producer's own memory file), so every other iteration-1 verification stands: hard-bit #3 renders re-key-by-owner/repo with the rejection shortcut ruled out and the escalate-as-new-HITL/no-silent-fallback clause; binding framing matches "same standing as cq-1"; merge-ordering compression consistent with the untouched four-element hard-bit #1; branches/umbrella-PRs, per-slice-repo test/review scoping (no cross-repo diff in v1), uniform branch naming, per-repo PR lists, and house rules all faithful. The human summary is now fully consistent with the refiner's v5 OPERATOR RULINGS section, which I ACKed at 47c1d9db5. + +````yaml +id: 54db4c56-62b1-45 +phase: refine +metadata: + payload: + artifact_references: + - .egg-state/drafts/3393-analysis-human.md + reason: "v2 fixes the single blocker exactly: the naming bullet now reads \"named\ + \ after its primary repo \u2014 the first in the list unless the submitter explicitly\ + \ marks another as primary\", restoring the operator ruling (4) escape hatch\ + \ that the prior wording dropped (\"first in list unless explicitly flagged\"\ + ). The delta touches only that bullet (plus the producer's own memory file),\ + \ so every other iteration-1 verification stands: hard-bit #3 renders re-key-by-owner/repo\ + \ with the rejection shortcut ruled out and the escalate-as-new-HITL/no-silent-fallback\ + \ clause; binding framing matches \"same standing as cq-1\"; merge-ordering\ + \ compression consistent with the untouched four-element hard-bit #1; branches/umbrella-PRs,\ + \ per-slice-repo test/review scoping (no cross-repo diff in v1), uniform branch\ + \ naming, per-repo PR lists, and house rules all faithful. The human summary\ + \ is now fully consistent with the refiner's v5 OPERATOR RULINGS section, which\ + \ I ACKed at 47c1d9db5." + ack_version: 2 + version: 2 +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:02:50Z] orchestrator → simplifier (STATUS): Ready to confirm — all confirm preconditions satisfied + +Your proposal (version 2) is ready to confirm — all blocking reviews are clear and global confirm preconditions are met. Run `egg-orch consensus confirmed` to confirm. + +````yaml +id: eaa860a5-d5e1-4e +phase: refine +metadata: + ready_to_confirm: true + version: 2 +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:02:54Z] simplifier (CONSENSUS_CONFIRMED): Consensus confirmed by simplifier + +orchestrator-side confirm (#3064 event loop) + +````yaml +id: 2bf2524b-d5b6-4a +phase: refine +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:02:54Z] reviewer_refine (CONSENSUS_CONFIRMED): Consensus confirmed by reviewer_refine + +orchestrator-side confirm (#3064 event loop) + +````yaml +id: 50d001fc-a26f-4b +phase: refine +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:02:54Z] reviewer_agent_design (CONSENSUS_CONFIRMED): Consensus confirmed by reviewer_agent_design + +orchestrator-side confirm (#3064 event loop) + +````yaml +id: e57d189a-7af4-45 +phase: refine +```` + +### [2026-07-02T00:02:54Z] first_principles_reviewer (CONSENSUS_CONFIRMED): Consensus confirmed by first_principles_reviewer + +orchestrator-side confirm (#3064 event loop) + +````yaml +id: 527daa57-10f3-47 +phase: refine +```` diff --git a/.egg-state/contracts/issue-3393.json b/.egg-state/contracts/issue-3393.json new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..7f0960b6b2 --- /dev/null +++ b/.egg-state/contracts/issue-3393.json @@ -0,0 +1,1688 @@ +{ + "schemaVersion": "1.3", + "issue": { + "number": 3393, + "title": "Issue #3393", + "url": "https://github.com/jwbron/egg/issues/3393" + }, + "task_description": "This pipeline's task is GitHub issue #3393 \u2014 https://github.com/jwbron/egg/issues/3393. Fetch the live issue body (`gh issue view 3393`) before structural decisions. Worktree artifacts (drafts, agent outputs) that reference any other issue or pipeline are leftovers from previous runs \u2014 they are NOT your task.\n\nFeature: multi-repo pipelines \u2014 coordinated PRs across repositories in one pipeline\n\n## Summary (feature request)\n\nA pipeline today operates on a **single repo** (`submit_task` takes one `repo` + one `base_branch`, produces one work branch and one PR). When a logically-single change spans more than one repository, the cross-repo portion has to be carved out as a **manual step** and handed to an engineer \u2014 fragmenting one unit of work across a pipeline plus an out-of-band manual task, with the sequencing/coordination burden pushed onto humans.\n\nRequest: let a pipeline **operate across multiple repos** \u2014 plan and produce coordinated PRs in more than one repository within a single pipeline, with cross-repo ordering expressed in the plan.\n\n## Requirements\n\n- **Arbitrary number of repos per pipeline.** No two-repo special case, no \"primary + one secondary\" shape baked into the data model. A pipeline is submitted with a list of repos (each with its own `base_branch`), and the plumbing must be genuinely list-shaped end to end \u2014 submission surface, pipeline state, agent environment, PR coordination.\n- **Each slice maps to exactly one repo (slice \u2194 repo, 1:1).** `Slice` gains a `repo` field; a slice's work, worktree, branch, review diff, test scope, and PR all live in that one repo. Cross-repo work is expressed as **multiple slices with dependencies**, never as a single slice touching two repos. This keeps worktree selection, PR routing, reviewer diffs, and test gating single-repo at the slice level \u2014 the coordination complexity lives only in the slice DAG.\n- **Uniform visibility within a given run: all private or all public.** Private mode is a pipeline-wide posture (context filtering, egress rules, what may be referenced where), so the repos of any one pipeline run must be uniformly private or uniformly public \u2014 mixing would let content from a private repo flow through shared plan/contract/PR surfaces into a public one. Submission must validate visibility uniformity for the run and reject mixed sets. (Different runs can of course be on different sides of the line.)\n\n## Motivating pattern\n\nThis recurs whenever a schema/protocol/contract lives in one repo and its producers/consumers live in another:\n\n- a shared library + the services that consume it,\n- an API definition repo + its client repos,\n- an event/message-schema repo + the producer/consumer that emit and read those events.\n\nThe canonical case: a change must **add a new version of a schema in repo A**, then **migrate the consumer in repo B to the new version** \u2014 and B's cutover can't fully land until A's PR merges. Today the repo-A half falls outside the pipeline (single-repo), so it becomes a manual hand-off: an engineer changes repo A by hand, and the pipeline-driven repo-B work waits on it. That:\n\n- splits one coherent change across a pipeline boundary,\n- introduces a human sequencing dependency (the consumer cutover can't land until the schema PR merges),\n- loses the pipeline's review/consensus/HITL rigor for the repo-A half.\n\nIf the pipeline could also open a PR in repo A as part of the same plan \u2014 an ordered slice ahead of the repo-B consumer-migration slice \u2014 the whole change would land coherently with no manual handoff.\n\n## Current state (it's closer than it looks)\n\nThe \"one pipeline = one repo\" assumption is concentrated, not pervasive. Several plumbing layers are already repo-parameterized:\n\n| Layer | State today |\n|---|---|\n| Gateway worktree creation | `create_worktrees(repos=[...])` already takes a **list** and returns `repo_volumes: dict[owner/repo \u2192 path]` |\n| Credentials | `get_token_for_repo(repo)` resolves auth **per repo** |\n| PR creation | `create_pr` / `create_slice_pr` already take an explicit `repo` param |\n| Gateway push policy | `check_branch_ownership` is **repo-agnostic** (branch-prefix / open-PR based) |\n| **Contract / Slice schema** | **No `repo` field anywhere** \u2014 this is the load-bearing gap |\n| Pipeline + agent env | `Pipeline.repo` is a singleton; agent env collapses the repo list to `repos[0]` (`EGG_PIPELINE_REPO`), already noted as brittle |\n\nSo the real work is **giving the plan a repo dimension and stopping the collapse to `repos[0]`** \u2014 not building checkout/auth/PR machinery from scratch.\n\n## What multi-repo support entails\n\n- **Submission:** accept a list of repos, each with its own `base_branch`/work branch. One repo may be designated primary (for pipeline naming and as the default for slices that don't specify), but nothing downstream may assume exactly one or exactly two.\n- **Per-repo checkout + push:** a working tree and push pattern per repo (gateway already supports the worktree list; push policy is already repo-agnostic).\n- **Cross-repo plan/slices:** the contract/slices gain a **repo dimension** \u2014 `Slice.repo`, exactly one repo per slice \u2014 and express **cross-repo ordering** through the existing slice-dependency mechanism (e.g. `repo-A: define new schema version` must land before `repo-B: migrate consumer`).\n- **Coordinated PRs:** one pipeline opens and links N PRs (one per slice, each in its slice's repo), with status/HITL gates spanning them and PR descriptions cross-referencing each other.\n- **Per-repo conventions:** each repo has its own `CLAUDE.md`/linters/check commands and review rules; agents working a slice operate under the conventions of that slice's repo.\n\n## Design questions (resolve in refine/plan)\n\n- **Work-branch / context-PR model per repo.** Today's model is one work branch \u2192 main context PR in the single repo. With N repos: does every repo in the pipeline get its own work branch and context PR, or only repos that end up with slices? What does the context PR look like in a repo with a single slice?\n- **Merge-sequencing gate semantics.** When a dependent slice's PR must wait on an upstream slice's PR merging *in another repo*, what holds it \u2014 a HITL gate, a status check, orchestrator polling of the upstream PR's merge state?\n- **Test-gate and reviewer-diff scoping.** With the checkout being N worktrees, how do the test gate and reviewer diffs scope per slice? (The slice\u2194repo 1:1 rule should make this \"the slice's repo only\", but the mechanics need spelling out.)\n- **Pipeline naming, branch naming, and status surfaces** when the repo is no longer a single scalar.\n\n## Hard parts (don't under-scope these)\n\n1. **The contract schema change is a persisted-JSON migration.** Adding `repo` to `Slice` touches contracts that are read across refine/plan/implement and persisted as JSON \u2014 backward-compat matters (absent field \u21d2 the pipeline's primary repo).\n2. **\"Atomic cross-repo landing\" is not actually achievable.** GitHub merges PRs independently; a pipeline can *open*, *link*, and *order the work*, but cannot atomically merge repo-A's PR before repo-B's. The cross-repo **merge-sequencing gate** (e.g. hold the consumer slice's PR until the schema PR merges) is a real HITL/gating design problem and is the part most likely to be underestimated.\n3. **Mixed auth modes across repos** (some bot, some user) is where the session model gets genuinely complex. v1 should require a **uniform auth mode** across all repos in the pipeline.\n\n## Scope and phasing\n\n- **v1 \u2014 arbitrary N repos, slice\u2194repo 1:1, uniform auth mode, uniform visibility per run.** The full requirements above: list-shaped submission, `Slice.repo`, full `repo_volumes` exposed in the agent environment (no `repos[0]` collapse), slice-PR creation routed to the slice's repo, cross-repo ordering via existing slice dependencies, and a workable (even if simple) merge-sequencing hold for dependent slices.\n- **Later \u2014 mixed auth modes** across repos, and any richer first-class merge-sequencing machinery beyond what v1 ships.\n\n## Benefits\n\n- Keeps a logically-single change in one plan with one set of HITL gates and consensus, instead of a pipeline plus a manual side-task.\n- Removes human sequencing/coordination for changes that are inherently cross-repo (schema repo + consumer repo, shared-lib + consumers, API + client).\n- The schema-repo + consumer-repo case is a clean first instance; the pattern recurs broadly.\n\n## Scope notes\n\n- Substantial capability, but the infra is more multi-repo-ready than it first appears \u2014 the concentrated gap is the contract/slice repo dimension plus the `repos[0]` collapse in agent env.\n- Not a blocker for any single in-flight pipeline (the manual step remains available), but it's the obvious next capability for changes that are inherently cross-repo.", + "pipeline_id": "issue-3393", + "current_phase": "refine", + "acceptance_criteria": [], + "slices": [ + { + "id": "slice-1", + "name": "Repo dimension in the persisted contract & pipeline schema (migration)", + "goal": "Add the load-bearing repo dimension across the two model layers, aligned\nto the ratified architect design. shared/egg_contracts/models.py (contract\nlayer): add `Slice.repo: str | None = None` (owner/name; None \u21d2 resolved\nto primary at runtime, NOT in the model) and bump `Contract.schemaVersion`\n1.3\u21921.4 as a PURE ADDITIVE after-stamp `_migrate_schema_version_to_1_4`\nmirroring `_migrate_schema_version_to_1_3` verbatim (guard\nschemaVersion==\"1.3\"; idempotent; NO field mutation \u2014 `Slice.repo` stays\nNone on legacy load). The Contract model carries NO repo field and cannot\nsee the pipeline, so absent\u21d2primary CANNOT be a model migration.\norchestrator/models.py (orchestrator layer): add `RepoSpec{repo,\nbase_branch}` and `Pipeline.repos: list[RepoSpec]` with a model validator\nthat synthesizes `repos=[RepoSpec(repo, base_branch)]` from the legacy\nsingleton when absent (and mirrors `repos[0]` back onto `repo`/`base_branch`\nfor legacy readers), a `primary_repo` property, and a RUNTIME resolver\n`resolve_slice_repo(slice, pipeline) -> slice.repo or pipeline.primary_repo`.\nN=1 pipelines round-trip / behave identically. Chain root: nothing writes\n`Slice.repo` until it lands.", + "status": "complete", + "review_cycles": 0, + "max_cycles": 3, + "escalated": false, + "escalation_reason": null, + "tasks": [ + { + "id": "task-1-1", + "description": "In shared/egg_contracts/models.py (CONTRACT layer only): (a) add\n`repo: str | None = None` to the `Slice` model, owner/name-shaped,\ndocumented as \"exactly one repo per slice; None \u21d2 resolved to the\npipeline's primary repo at RUNTIME (see resolve_slice_repo), NOT filled\nby the model.\" (b) Bump `Contract.schemaVersion` \"1.3\"\u2192\"1.4\" by adding\n`_migrate_schema_version_to_1_4` as a PURE ADDITIVE after-stamp that\nmirrors `_migrate_schema_version_to_1_3` (models.py:1049-1069)\nVERBATIM: guard `if self.schemaVersion == \"1.3\": self.schemaVersion =\n\"1.4\"`, idempotent, NO field mutation \u2014 `Slice.repo` stays None on a\nlegacy load. Update the schemaVersion field docstring (:844-862) to\nnote the new additive stamp. CRITICAL (per risk_analyst R1 / architect\naeb3528): the Contract model has NO repo field and cannot see the\norchestrator Pipeline, so the validator MUST NOT try to populate\n`Slice.repo` and MUST NOT reference any pipeline repo. The\nabsent\u21d2primary default and the pipeline repo LIST are BOTH orchestrator\nconcerns (TASK-1-2), NOT the contract. Do NOT persist a repo list onto\nthe Contract \u2014 the repo list lives only on the orchestrator Pipeline.\nPreserve every existing field and migration branch byte-for-byte.", + "status": "complete", + "commit": "797a5901cf2e367aa6b22d8fb6c210daebcc18c9", + "checkpoint_id": null, + "notes": "", + "acceptance_criteria": "- `Slice.repo` exists (str | None, default None), documented as\n \"None \u21d2 primary repo resolved at runtime, not by the model\".\n- `Contract.schemaVersion` is \"1.4\"; `_migrate_schema_version_to_1_4`\n is a pure additive stamp mirroring the 1.3 precedent (guarded on\n \"1.3\", idempotent, no field mutation); `Slice.repo` stays None when a\n 1.3 contract is loaded.\n- The contract migration does NOT populate `Slice.repo` and does NOT\n reference any pipeline/primary repo; no repo LIST is added to the\n Contract.\n- The four existing migration branches are untouched; N=1 contracts\n serialize/deserialize with no observable change.", + "files_affected": [ + "shared/egg_contracts/models.py" + ], + "role": "coder", + "review_cycles": 0, + "max_cycles": 3, + "escalated": false, + "delegation_attempts": 0, + "gaps": [ + { + "id": "gap-1", + "from_role": "tester", + "to_role": "coder", + "description": "Coder gap (slice-1, blocks full-suite green): task-1-1 bumped the Pydantic model default `Contract.schemaVersion` 1.3\u21921.4 but did NOT bump the lockstep JSON schema at `.egg/schemas/contract.schema.json` (`properties.schemaVersion.default` is still \"1.3\", line 17). This breaks `tests/shared/egg_contracts/test_models_task_description.py::TestContractJsonSchemaTaskDescription::test_schema_default_schemaversion_tracks_model` (asserts schema default == model default \u2192 `assert '1.3' == '1.4'`). Tester is role-blocked from `.egg/schemas/contract.schema.json` (alternative_role=coder). FIX: bump that file's `schemaVersion.default` to \"1.4\" in lockstep with the model, then re-propose. This is the only remaining real failure after the tester's stale-assertion fixes (d1becb0e9); the 3 test_agent_roles failures are pre-existing environmental import noise (reproduce at f162bf292).\n\n[OPERATOR RESOLUTION 2026-07-02T20:25Z] schema default verified '1.4' on slice-7 branch (.egg/schemas/contract.schema.json)", + "created_at": "2026-07-02T04:28:19Z", + "resolved": true + } + ], + "jira_key": null, + "jira_action": null, + "jira_action_status": null + }, + { + "id": "task-1-2", + "description": "In orchestrator/models.py (ORCHESTRATOR layer): (a) add a `RepoSpec`\nmodel carrying `repo: str` (owner/name) and `base_branch: str | None`.\n(b) add `Pipeline.repos: list[RepoSpec]` (default_factory=list) and a\nmodel validator that, when `repos` is absent but the legacy singleton\n`Pipeline.repo` (models.py:1131) is set, SYNTHESIZES\n`repos=[RepoSpec(repo=repo, base_branch=base_branch)]` (back-compat),\nand mirrors `repos[0]` back onto the legacy `repo`/`base_branch` scalars\nso legacy readers keep working until slice 3 rewires them. (c) add a\n`primary_repo` property returning `repos[0].repo` \u2014 the INTENTIONAL\nprimary accessor for naming/defaulting, explicitly NOT one of the three\n`repos[0]` collapse sites removed in slice 3 (those collapse the\nagent-facing repo set to a single repo; this exposes a named primary\nwhile keeping the full list available). (d) add the RUNTIME resolver\n`resolve_slice_repo(slice, pipeline) -> slice.repo if slice.repo else\npipeline.primary_repo` \u2014 this is where absent-`Slice.repo`\u21d2primary\nlives (it takes the pipeline as a second input, which the contract\nmodel cannot). Nothing may assume `len(repos)` \u2208 {1, 2}.", + "status": "complete", + "commit": "d779b0c8ceda750c042c0bba3f925097eff015e8", + "checkpoint_id": null, + "notes": "", + "acceptance_criteria": "- `RepoSpec{repo, base_branch}` and `Pipeline.repos: list[RepoSpec]`\n exist; the validator synthesizes `repos` from a legacy singleton and\n mirrors `repos[0]` back onto `repo`/`base_branch`.\n- `primary_repo` returns `repos[0].repo`; no two-repo or\n primary+secondary shape is baked in; nothing assumes len(repos)\u2208{1,2}.\n- `resolve_slice_repo(slice, pipeline)` returns `slice.repo` when set\n else `pipeline.primary_repo` \u2014 the absent\u21d2primary default lives HERE,\n not in the contract migration.\n- No behavioral change for N=1 pipelines; the three collapse sites are\n untouched (removed in slice 3).", + "files_affected": [ + "orchestrator/models.py" + ], + "role": "coder", + "review_cycles": 0, + "max_cycles": 3, + "escalated": false, + "delegation_attempts": 0, + "gaps": [], + "jira_key": null, + "jira_action": null, + "jira_action_status": null + }, + { + "id": "task-1-3", + "description": "Add tests covering the two-layer slice-1 design. In\nshared/egg_contracts/tests/test_models.py (CONTRACT layer): (a) a fresh\n1.4 contract accepts and round-trips `Slice.repo`; (b) loading a\npersisted 1.3 contract leaves each slice's `repo` as None and bumps\nschemaVersion to \"1.4\" (pure additive stamp \u2014 assert NO repo is filled\nby the model); (c) the 1.4 stamp is idempotent and the four pre-existing\nmigration branches still fire for their versions (no regression). In\norchestrator/tests (ORCHESTRATOR layer \u2014 nearest existing\npipeline-model test module): (d) `resolve_slice_repo(slice, pipeline)`\nreturns `slice.repo` when set and `pipeline.primary_repo` when\n`slice.repo` is None; (e) a legacy singleton `Pipeline.repo` synthesizes\na one-element `repos` list and mirrors back onto `repo`/`base_branch`;\n(f) `primary_repo` == `repos[0].repo`; (g) N=1 behavior is identical.", + "status": "complete", + "commit": "d1becb0e9", + "checkpoint_id": null, + "notes": "Tests added on top of coder impl d779b0c8c. Contract layer (shared/egg_contracts/tests/test_models.py, new): Slice.repo round-trip; 1.3->1.4 additive stamp leaves repo None (no model-fill), preserves explicit repo; 1.4 idempotent+version-exact; prior branches fire (full-chain None/1.0/1.1/1.2/1.3->1.4, wrap-mode context_* strip, direct 1.0->1.1 & 1.3->1.4). Orchestrator layer (orchestrator/tests/test_models.py): RepoSpec; Pipeline.repos synth-from-singleton + mirror-back (idempotent); arbitrary repo count; primary_repo==repos[0].repo; resolve_slice_repo set=>slice.repo/None=>primary; N=1 both layers. 147 tests pass via system pytest against the working tree; ruff clean. make test could not provision its venv in this sandbox (no network) \u2014 integration gate enforces make test/-all green.", + "acceptance_criteria": "- Contract-layer tests assert the additive 1.3\u21921.4 stamp with\n `Slice.repo` staying None on legacy load (no model-filled repo),\n idempotency, and the four prior branches intact.\n- Orchestrator-layer tests assert `resolve_slice_repo` (set\u21d2slice.repo,\n None\u21d2primary), legacy singleton\u21d2one-element `repos` + mirror-back, and\n `primary_repo`==repos[0].repo.\n- N=1 back-compat asserted at both layers.\n- `make test` (narrowed) and `make test-all` green.", + "files_affected": [ + "shared/egg_contracts/tests/test_models.py", + "orchestrator/tests/test_models.py" + ], + "role": "tester", + "review_cycles": 0, + "max_cycles": 3, + "escalated": false, + "delegation_attempts": 0, + "gaps": [], + "jira_key": null, + "jira_action": null, + "jira_action_status": null + } + ], + "dependencies": [], + "serialized_chain_order": [], + "parent_branch_at_creation": "egg/issue-3393/work", + "integration_base_sha": "f162bf292abf5f6cb5c9d9bad8fd9b2c59ba8ec3", + "commit": null, + "pr_number": 3422, + "pr_url": "https://github.com/jwbron/egg/pull/3422", + "review_feedback": [] + }, + { + "id": "slice-2", + "name": "List-shaped submission + uniform visibility/auth validation", + "goal": "Make submission genuinely list-shaped end to end and enforce the two\nuniformity rules. `submit_task` and `POST /api/v1/pipelines` accept a list\nof {repo, base_branch}; a bare single repo stays accepted (back-compat).\nSubmission-time validation rejects mixed-visibility sets and\nmixed-auth-mode sets with actionable errors (reusing `get_repo_visibility`\nand per-repo `get_auth_mode`). Same-name repo sets are NOT rejected\n(operator ruling #6). One repo is designated primary (first unless\nflagged) for naming and slice-default.", + "status": "complete", + "review_cycles": 0, + "max_cycles": 3, + "escalated": false, + "escalation_reason": null, + "tasks": [ + { + "id": "task-2-1", + "description": "Extend the submission surface to accept a repo *list*. In\norchestrator/mcp_tools/_submit.py (submit_task, currently a single\n`repo` + `base_branch` at :78-79): accept either a single\nrepo/base_branch (back-compat) or a list of {repo, base_branch}\nentries; normalize to the list-shaped Pipeline repo set from slice 1\nwith the first entry (or an explicitly flagged one) as primary. In\norchestrator/routes/pipelines.py: thread the repo list through the\n`POST /api/v1/pipelines` handler and pipeline construction so the\nfull list reaches Pipeline; do not collapse to a single repo. Do not\nadd the uniformity validators here (TASK-2-2) and do not touch the\nthree collapse sites (slice 3).", + "status": "complete", + "commit": "390def500", + "checkpoint_id": null, + "notes": "Implemented across submit_task (mcp_tools/_tool_defs.py schema + _submit.py normalization), POST /api/v1/pipelines (routes/pipelines.py: _normalize_submission_repos + Pipeline construction with full repos list), and state_store.create_pipeline (new optional repos param). Beyond the plan's 2 named files, this necessarily also touched _tool_defs.py (MCP schema for the new 'repos' arg; relaxed required to [description]) and state_store/_crud.py (repos kwarg \u2192 Pipeline.repos). No repos[0] collapse introduced. N=1 unchanged: repos=None \u21d2 slice-1 Pipeline validator synthesizes the one-element list from the legacy singleton. Primary = first entry or the one flagged 'primary'; normalized canonically primary-first so the model's repos[0]\u2192singleton mirror and primary_repo stay consistent.", + "acceptance_criteria": "- submit_task accepts a list of {repo, base_branch}; a bare single\n repo still works unchanged.\n- The pipelines route constructs a Pipeline with the full repo list\n (per-repo base_branch), primary = first/flagged.\n- No collapse to repos[0] is introduced in the submission path.", + "files_affected": [ + "orchestrator/mcp_tools/_submit.py", + "orchestrator/routes/pipelines.py" + ], + "role": "coder", + "review_cycles": 0, + "max_cycles": 3, + "escalated": false, + "delegation_attempts": 0, + "gaps": [ + { + "id": "gap-1", + "from_role": "tester", + "to_role": "coder", + "description": "Tester interface expectation (test_pipelines.py::TestListSubmissionRoute, activates at convergence): `_handle_submit_task` should forward a `repos` list argument onto the POST /api/v1/pipelines body verbatim as `data[\"repos\"]` (list of {repo, base_branch} dicts), in addition to the existing single `repo`/`base_branch` back-compat path. The tester test skips until `data[\"repos\"]` is present, then asserts it round-trips unchanged. Model-layer list fidelity (full list preserved, no primary+secondary collapse, primary==repos[0]) is already asserted green against Pipeline.repos.\n\n[OPERATOR RESOLUTION 2026-07-02T20:25Z] repos list forwarded in orchestrator/mcp_tools/_submit.py (verified on slice-7 branch)", + "created_at": "2026-07-02T04:50:32Z", + "resolved": true + } + ], + "jira_key": null, + "jira_action": null, + "jira_action_status": null + }, + { + "id": "task-2-2", + "description": "Add submission-time uniformity validation. Reuse\ngateway/repo_visibility.py `get_repo_visibility(owner, repo)` to\nrequire all repos in a run to be uniformly private or uniformly\npublic, and gateway/git_client/_credentials.py `get_auth_mode(repo)`\nto require a single uniform auth mode across the run. On a mixed set,\nreject the submission with an actionable error naming the offending\nrepos and which dimension (visibility vs auth) diverged. Do NOT reject\nsame-name repo sets \u2014 the collision is resolved by the owner/repo\nre-key in slice 3 (operator ruling #6). Add small, focused helper\nfunctions (e.g. `assert_uniform_visibility`, `assert_uniform_auth`)\non the gateway modules where the per-repo lookups live, and call them\nfrom the submission path in orchestrator/routes/pipelines.py.", + "status": "complete", + "commit": "3388e7391", + "checkpoint_id": null, + "notes": "Runtime-boundary deviation from the plan's file list: the orchestrator image (orchestrator/Dockerfile) ships config/repo_config.py + shared/ but NOT gateway/, so gateway/repo_visibility.py and gateway/git_client/_credentials.py are NOT importable from the submission path (orchestrator/routes/pipelines.py). Placing assert_uniform_visibility/assert_uniform_auth in those gateway modules and calling them from the submission path (as literally worded) would ImportError at runtime or leave dead helpers. Implemented where actually reachable, meeting all behavioral acceptance criteria: (1) assert_uniform_auth added to config/repo_config.py \u2014 the canonical home of get_auth_mode, bundled into BOTH images \u2014 and imported by the orchestrator; (2) visibility uniformity performed inline in _assert_repo_set_uniform via GatewayClient.get_repo_visibility (the orchestrator's only visibility source, mirroring the existing _compute_gateway_mode at pipelines.py:3033). Mixed sets \u2192 actionable repo-naming 400; same-short-name-different-owner NOT rejected (owner/repo re-key is slice 3); single repo trivially uniform (no gateway round-trip). Flagged for reviewer_contract adjudication.", + "acceptance_criteria": "- A mixed-visibility repo set is rejected with an actionable,\n repo-naming error.\n- A mixed-auth-mode repo set is rejected with an actionable error.\n- Same-name repo sets are NOT rejected.\n- Uniform sets pass; single-repo submissions are trivially uniform.", + "files_affected": [ + "gateway/repo_visibility.py", + "gateway/git_client/_credentials.py", + "orchestrator/routes/pipelines.py" + ], + "role": "coder", + "review_cycles": 0, + "max_cycles": 3, + "escalated": false, + "delegation_attempts": 0, + "gaps": [ + { + "id": "gap-1", + "from_role": "tester", + "to_role": "coder", + "description": "Tester interface expectation (gateway/tests/test_repo_visibility.py::TestVisibilityUniformity/TestAuthModeUniformity + test_pipelines.py::TestSubmissionUniformityIntegration, skip-guarded until integrated). Tests import from `repo_visibility`: `validate_visibility_uniformity(repos: list[str]) -> None` and `validate_auth_mode_uniformity(repos: list[str]) -> None`, where `repos` are `owner/name` slugs. Contract each: no-op when the set is uniform or has <2 repos; raise ValueError whose message NAMES the offending repos on a mixed set; `internal` shares the private posture (internal+private is uniform); a same-name/different-owner set with a uniform bucket is NOT rejected (ruling #6). Visibility resolves via `get_repo_visibility`/`get_visibility_checker`; auth via `get_auth_mode` (config.repo_config). If you place the helpers elsewhere or use a different name/signature, tell the tester so the import target + skip-guard are realigned (otherwise the tests stay skipped and coverage is silently lost).\n\n[OPERATOR RESOLUTION 2026-07-02T20:25Z] validate_visibility_uniformity + validate_auth_mode_uniformity present in gateway/repo_visibility.py (verified)", + "created_at": "2026-07-02T04:50:36Z", + "resolved": true + } + ], + "jira_key": null, + "jira_action": null, + "jira_action_status": null + }, + { + "id": "task-2-3", + "description": "Add tests for slice 2 in orchestrator/tests (submission) and\ngateway/tests (uniformity helpers): list submission accepted and\nconstructs the full repo list; bare single-repo submission still\naccepted; mixed-visibility set rejected with the expected error;\nmixed-auth-mode set rejected; same-name-different-owner set NOT\nrejected; primary-repo defaulting to first/flagged. Include the N=1\nregression path.", + "status": "complete", + "commit": "6ecabe787", + "checkpoint_id": null, + "notes": "[coder cross-ref, not a tester edit of intent] Slice-2 coder integrated the exact interface these tests expect: gateway/repo_visibility.py now defines validate_visibility_uniformity(repos) and validate_auth_mode_uniformity(repos) (the latter delegates to config/repo_config.py assert_uniform_auth). submit_task forwards `repos`. Orchestrator create_pipeline enforces uniformity at submission via _assert_repo_set_uniform (auth \u2192 repo_config.assert_uniform_auth; visibility \u2192 GatewayClient.get_repo_visibility, the orchestrator's only visibility source since the orchestrator image does not ship gateway/). The previously-skipped uniformity tests should activate at convergence.", + "acceptance_criteria": "- Tests cover list + single-repo submission, both uniformity\n rejections, the same-name-allowed case, and primary defaulting.\n- N=1 submission behavior is asserted unchanged.\n- `make test` (narrowed) and `make test-all` green.", + "files_affected": [ + "orchestrator/tests/test_pipelines.py", + "gateway/tests/test_repo_visibility.py" + ], + "role": "tester", + "review_cycles": 0, + "max_cycles": 3, + "escalated": false, + "delegation_attempts": 0, + "gaps": [], + "jira_key": null, + "jira_action": null, + "jira_action_status": null + } + ], + "dependencies": [ + "slice-1" + ], + "serialized_chain_order": [], + "parent_branch_at_creation": "egg/issue-3393/slice-1", + "integration_base_sha": "c78ed6724179141ab263db274f074ced9ba067c2", + "commit": null, + "pr_number": 3423, + "pr_url": "https://github.com/jwbron/egg/pull/3423", + "review_feedback": [] + }, + { + "id": "slice-3", + "name": "Stop the repos[0] collapse; owner/repo-keyed worktree map in agent env", + "goal": "Remove all three enumerated `repos[0]` collapse sites and expose the full\nrepo\u2192worktree map to the agent environment, re-keyed by full `owner/repo`\n(operator ruling #6). Today the worktree dict keys by bare repo name\n(_worktree.py:74-79) and would collide on same-name repos under different\nowners. A ratchet test plus a `grep -rn 'repos\\[0\\]'` sweep guard against\nregressions, explicitly allowing the len(repos)==1-guarded\nsandbox/egg_lib/sdlc_hitl.py:82 (not a collapse).", + "status": "complete", + "review_cycles": 0, + "max_cycles": 3, + "escalated": false, + "escalation_reason": null, + "tasks": [ + { + "id": "task-3-1", + "description": "Remove the three collapse sites and thread the full repo set through.\n(a) orchestrator/kubernetes_spawner/_spawn.py:452 (`repo_name =\nrepos[0].split(\"/\")[-1]`) and :464 (`pipeline_repo = repos[0]`) plus\nthe `EGG_PIPELINE_REPO` export at :523 \u2014 replace with logic that\nderives naming from the pipeline's primary repo but exposes the FULL\nrepo\u2192worktree map to the agent env keyed by full `owner/repo`\n(feeding from the client `worktrees` field \u2192 spawner `repo_volumes`).\nKeep `EGG_PIPELINE_REPO` populated with the primary for back-compat\nbut add the full map (e.g. an `EGG_PIPELINE_REPOS` / repo_volumes\nenv exposure) so agents can select the slice's repo. (b)\norchestrator/commit_authorship_store.py:932-933 \u2014 replace the\n`repos[0]` fallback with primary-repo resolution that does not assume\na single repo. (c) orchestrator/routes/pipelines.py:732\n(`overseer_repo = pipeline_repos[0]`) \u2014 resolve via the primary\naccessor. Use the `primary_repo` accessor from slice 1 rather than\nre-introducing index-0 access.", + "status": "complete", + "commit": "5601063cb814987b49c57139ae41bb932012c544", + "checkpoint_id": null, + "notes": "", + "acceptance_criteria": "- All three collapse sites (`_spawn.py:452/:464`,\n `commit_authorship_store.py:932-933`, `pipelines.py:732`) no longer\n index `repos[0]`; they use the primary accessor or the full map.\n- The agent environment exposes the full repo\u2192worktree map keyed by\n full `owner/repo` (no bare-name collision).\n- `EGG_PIPELINE_REPO` still resolves to the primary for back-compat.", + "files_affected": [ + "orchestrator/kubernetes_spawner/_spawn.py", + "orchestrator/commit_authorship_store.py", + "orchestrator/routes/pipelines.py" + ], + "role": "coder", + "review_cycles": 0, + "max_cycles": 3, + "escalated": false, + "delegation_attempts": 0, + "gaps": [], + "jira_key": null, + "jira_action": null, + "jira_action_status": null + }, + { + "id": "task-3-2", + "description": "Re-key the worktree map by full `owner/repo` at its source. In\norchestrator/gateway_client/_worktree.py:74-79 the `worktrees` dict is\nkeyed by bare repo name (`repo.split(\"/\")[-1]`-shaped); change the key\nto the full `owner/repo` so two repos with the same short name under\ndifferent owners no longer collide, and update the corresponding\ngateway handler keying in gateway/gateway.py (worktree creation\nresponse, ~7827) to match. Preserve the returned path values; only the\nkey changes. Update the spawner consumer (fed via `repo_volumes`) to\nread the owner/repo keys.", + "status": "complete", + "commit": "5601063cb814987b49c57139ae41bb932012c544", + "checkpoint_id": null, + "notes": "", + "acceptance_criteria": "- `WorktreeResult.worktrees` (and the gateway handler that builds it)\n is keyed by full `owner/repo`.\n- Same-name-different-owner repos get distinct entries.\n- The spawner reads the owner/repo-keyed map; paths are unchanged.", + "files_affected": [ + "orchestrator/gateway_client/_worktree.py", + "gateway/gateway.py" + ], + "role": "coder", + "review_cycles": 0, + "max_cycles": 3, + "escalated": false, + "delegation_attempts": 0, + "gaps": [], + "jira_key": null, + "jira_action": null, + "jira_action_status": null + }, + { + "id": "task-3-3", + "description": "Add tests + a regression ratchet in orchestrator/tests. Assert: the\nagent env exposes the full owner/repo-keyed repo\u2192path map; each of the\nthree former collapse sites now resolves via the primary accessor / full\nmap (unit-level assertions on the spawner env, commit-authorship\nresolution, and overseer-repo resolution for a 2-repo pipeline); and a\nratchet test that greps the orchestrator source for `repos[0]`\ncollapse patterns and fails if any reappear, with an explicit allowlist\nentry for the len(repos)==1-guarded sandbox/egg_lib/sdlc_hitl.py:82.\nAlso assert the worktree map keying is owner/repo (no bare-name\ncollision) via test_kubernetes_spawner / test_gateway_client.", + "status": "complete", + "commit": "6465cdaae", + "checkpoint_id": null, + "notes": "", + "acceptance_criteria": "- Tests assert the full owner/repo-keyed env map and correct\n resolution at all three former collapse sites for a multi-repo\n pipeline.\n- A ratchet test fails if a `repos[0]` collapse is reintroduced, with\n sdlc_hitl.py:82 allowlisted.\n- `make test` (narrowed) and `make test-all` green.", + "files_affected": [ + "orchestrator/tests/test_kubernetes_spawner.py", + "orchestrator/tests/test_gateway_client.py" + ], + "role": "tester", + "review_cycles": 0, + "max_cycles": 3, + "escalated": false, + "delegation_attempts": 0, + "gaps": [], + "jira_key": null, + "jira_action": null, + "jira_action_status": null + } + ], + "dependencies": [ + "slice-2" + ], + "serialized_chain_order": [], + "parent_branch_at_creation": "egg/issue-3393/slice-2", + "integration_base_sha": "e9990ec3c2486de35d91ca50d27a2e6c42fd855c", + "commit": null, + "pr_number": 3424, + "pr_url": "https://github.com/jwbron/egg/pull/3424", + "review_feedback": [] + }, + { + "id": "slice-4", + "name": "Slice-PR routing to slice.repo + lazy per-repo work branch & context PR", + "goal": "Route each slice's PR to `slice.repo` and give every participating repo its\nown work branch + context PR (lazy-per-repo, operator ruling #1). Repos with\n\u22651 slice get an `egg//work` branch and a context PR; submitted repos\nwith no slices get neither. Slice-PR and context-PR descriptions\ncross-reference sibling PRs in the pipeline.", + "status": "complete", + "review_cycles": 0, + "max_cycles": 3, + "escalated": false, + "escalation_reason": null, + "tasks": [ + { + "id": "task-4-1", + "description": "Route slice-PR creation to the slice's repo. `create_slice_pr`\n(orchestrator/gateway_client/_pr.py:139-164) is already\nrepo-parameterized; change the caller(s) in\norchestrator/routes/pipelines.py to pass `slice.repo` (falling back to\nthe pipeline primary when a slice's repo is absent, per the slice-1\nmigration default) instead of the pipeline singleton. Render sibling\ncross-references into the slice-PR body: list the other pipeline PRs\n(repo + number) and, for a dependent slice, note the upstream slice's\nPR it is ordered behind.", + "status": "complete", + "commit": "2817f96b4", + "checkpoint_id": null, + "notes": "", + "acceptance_criteria": "- Each slice's PR is opened in `slice.repo`; absent \u21d2 primary.\n- The slice-PR body cross-references sibling pipeline PRs (repo +\n number) and names the upstream PR for dependent slices.\n- No behavioral change for N=1 (single repo) pipelines.", + "files_affected": [ + "orchestrator/gateway_client/_pr.py", + "orchestrator/routes/pipelines.py" + ], + "role": "coder", + "review_cycles": 0, + "max_cycles": 3, + "escalated": false, + "delegation_attempts": 0, + "gaps": [], + "jira_key": null, + "jira_action": null, + "jira_action_status": null + }, + { + "id": "task-4-2", + "description": "Make the context-PR opener lazy-per-repo. In\norchestrator/routes/pipelines.py\n`_open_context_pr_at_implement_start` (~11001-11250), which today opens\none context PR on `egg//work \u2192 main` in the single repo: iterate\nthe set of repos that own \u22651 slice, and for each open its own\n`egg//work` branch (same naming, per repo) and its own context PR;\nskip submitted repos with no slices. A single-slice repo still gets the\nstandard context PR (uniformity beats special-casing). Cross-reference\nsibling context PRs in each body. Keep the N=1 path byte-equivalent to\ntoday.", + "status": "complete", + "commit": "2817f96b4", + "checkpoint_id": null, + "notes": "", + "acceptance_criteria": "- Every repo with \u22651 slice gets its own `egg//work` branch and\n context PR; a slice-less submitted repo gets neither.\n- A single-slice repo gets the standard context PR.\n- Context-PR bodies cross-reference sibling context PRs.\n- N=1 behavior is unchanged.", + "files_affected": [ + "orchestrator/routes/pipelines.py" + ], + "role": "coder", + "review_cycles": 0, + "max_cycles": 3, + "escalated": false, + "delegation_attempts": 0, + "gaps": [], + "jira_key": null, + "jira_action": null, + "jira_action_status": null + }, + { + "id": "task-4-3", + "description": "Add tests in orchestrator/tests: a slice's PR is created in\n`slice.repo` (and falls back to primary when absent); the slice-PR and\ncontext-PR bodies render sibling cross-references; the lazy-per-repo\nrule holds (repo with \u22651 slice \u21d2 work branch + context PR; slice-less\nrepo \u21d2 neither; single-slice repo \u21d2 standard context PR); N=1 opens\nexactly one work branch + context PR as today.", + "status": "complete", + "commit": "52ed962fc", + "checkpoint_id": null, + "notes": "", + "acceptance_criteria": "- Tests assert slice-PR repo routing (+ primary fallback), sibling\n cross-references, and the lazy-per-repo work-branch/context-PR rule.\n- N=1 regression asserted (one work branch + one context PR).\n- `make test` (narrowed) and `make test-all` green.", + "files_affected": [ + "orchestrator/tests/test_pipelines.py" + ], + "role": "tester", + "review_cycles": 0, + "max_cycles": 3, + "escalated": false, + "delegation_attempts": 0, + "gaps": [], + "jira_key": null, + "jira_action": null, + "jira_action_status": null + } + ], + "dependencies": [ + "slice-3" + ], + "serialized_chain_order": [], + "parent_branch_at_creation": "egg/issue-3393/slice-3", + "integration_base_sha": "aa567fa67323fe87d625ed9bab89f8dfddc78b7f", + "commit": null, + "pr_number": 3429, + "pr_url": "https://github.com/jwbron/egg/pull/3429", + "review_feedback": [] + }, + { + "id": "slice-5", + "name": "Cross-repo merge-sequencing hold (cq-1 two-tier)", + "goal": "Implement the operator-resolved (HITL cq-1) two-tier merge-sequencing hold.\nTier A (automated): a cross-repo dependent slice is developed in parallel,\nits PR opens as draft, and the orchestrator polls the upstream slice's PR\nmerge state and auto-marks the dependent PR ready once the upstream merges\n\u2014 no HITL for plain merge ordering. Tier B (HITL): a distinct hold type for\nbeyond-merge-state conditions (release/publish of the upstream repo, a\nversion-pin choice, or a genuine cannot-continue development block) is held\nand released by a HITL decision, never programmatic detection. Dependencies\ngate merge-readiness, not development.", + "status": "complete", + "review_cycles": 0, + "max_cycles": 3, + "escalated": false, + "escalation_reason": null, + "tasks": [ + { + "id": "task-5-1", + "description": "Implement Tier A (automated merge-ordering hold) with FULLY PINNED\nfailure semantics (reviewer_plan R3 / architect aeb3528 layer_6). A\ndependency edge B\u2192A is cross-repo iff\n`resolve_slice_repo(A) != resolve_slice_repo(B)`. For such an edge:\nopen B's PR as a DRAFT (already supported) while upstream A's PR is\nunmerged, and register an upstream-merge poll on the EXISTING reconcile\ncadence (extend orchestrator/stacked_pr_reconciler.py, or add a small\ncross_repo_merge_gate.py invoked from it \u2014 do not invent a new\nscheduler subsystem).\nPIN THREE SEMANTICS:\n(a) MERGE DETECTION uses the PR **merged boolean / `mergedAt`**\n(`gh pr view --json state,mergedAt` via a small gateway read verb),\nNOT head-SHA equality \u2014 a squash/rebase merge yields a merge-commit SHA\n\u2260 the PR head, so SHA-equality would misfire. On merged\u21d2 call a NEW\ngateway verb `mark_pr_ready(repo, pr_number)` (wraps the existing\n`gh pr ready`, gateway/github_client.py:124) exposed via gateway/gateway.py\n+ orchestrator/gateway_client/_pr.py, transitioning B draft\u2192ready.\n(b) CLOSED-UNMERGED TERMINAL: if upstream A's PR reaches state=CLOSED\nwith no `mergedAt` (closed, not merged), do NOT auto-ready B \u2014 escalate\nto a HITL hold (reuse the Tier-B hold mechanism / decision queue) and\nsurface it on status. This is distinct from Tier B's beyond-merge-state\nconditions; it is the Tier-A failure terminal.\n(c) BOUND / TIMEOUT: bound the poll (a max wait / attempt budget); a\nnever-merging upstream that exceeds the bound escalates to the same\nHITL hold rather than leaving B draft indefinitely. \"If the auto path\ncannot resolve, fall through to the HITL hold rather than hanging\"\n(architect layer_6).\nDevelopment is NOT serialized \u2014 B is worked in parallel; only B's\nPR ready-state waits. Do NOT implement release/publish or version\ndetection here (cq-1 forbids automating those signals).", + "status": "complete", + "commit": "99116fb58", + "checkpoint_id": null, + "notes": "", + "acceptance_criteria": "- A cross-repo dependent slice's PR opens draft and is auto-marked\n ready (via `mark_pr_ready`) only when the upstream PR's merged\n boolean / `mergedAt` is set \u2014 detection uses merged-state, NOT\n head-SHA equality.\n- Upstream PR CLOSED-not-merged does NOT auto-ready B; it escalates to\n a HITL hold and is surfaced on status.\n- The poll is bounded; exceeding the bound (never-merging upstream)\n escalates to the HITL hold, not an indefinite draft.\n- A new `mark_pr_ready(repo, pr_number)` gateway verb (wrapping\n `gh pr ready`) exists and is used for the transition.\n- Development is not serialized by the dependency; no\n release/publish/version auto-detection is added; same-repo\n dependencies and N=1 pipelines are unaffected.", + "files_affected": [ + "orchestrator/routes/pipelines.py", + "orchestrator/stacked_pr_reconciler.py", + "orchestrator/gateway_client/_pr.py", + "gateway/gateway.py", + "gateway/github_client.py" + ], + "role": "coder", + "review_cycles": 0, + "max_cycles": 3, + "escalated": false, + "delegation_attempts": 0, + "gaps": [ + { + "id": "gap-1", + "from_role": "tester", + "to_role": "coder", + "description": "Coverage gap (non-blocking, follow-up hardening) on orchestrator/cross_repo_merge_gate.py: the stateful orchestration is unit-tested only at the classifier/reference level (task-5-3 TestMergePollClassifierIntegration exercises classify_upstream_merge; the always-green tests pin the semantics). The richer stateful surface has no dedicated tests: (1) poll_once across multiple ticks \u2014 the never-merging attempt-bound timeout terminal (attempts>max_attempts => register_hold(\"timeout\")) is only asserted via the tester reference logic, not against the real poll_once; (2) find_cross_repo_gates multi-upstream gates (B with 2+ cross-repo upstreams; all-merged AND-gate vs one-closed-unmerged; upstream with pr_number=None); (3) the GateProgress resolved/decision_registered idempotency (no re-ready within a run; mark_ready False => retry next tick); (4) the Tier-B skip-polling path (hold_kind==hitl registers up front and never polls upstream merge); (5) the pipelines.py HITL-hold marker helpers (_cross_repo_hold_marker/_cross_repo_hold_resolved/_register_cross_repo_hold). Recommend a dedicated orchestrator/tests/test_cross_repo_merge_gate.py driving poll_once with injected fakes (get_merge_state/mark_ready/register_hold/hold_is_resolved) \u2014 the module is pure-logic with injected callables, so this is cheap. Implementation is CORRECT as read; this is missing coverage of correct code, not a bug.\n\n[OPERATOR RESOLUTION 2026-07-02T20:25Z] orchestrator/tests/test_cross_repo_merge_gate.py exists on slice-7 branch (verified)", + "created_at": "2026-07-02T18:24:47Z", + "resolved": true + }, + { + "id": "gap-2", + "from_role": "tester", + "to_role": "coder", + "description": "Coverage/robustness follow-up (non-blocking) on the v2 release-selection mapping in pipelines.py _cross_repo_hold_resolution (commit 58a4be9d3). The v2 delta correctly added TestCrossRepoHoldReleaseSelection which drives the real poll_once verdict handling (RELEASE/KEEP/None) \u2014 good. But the resolution->verdict MAPPING itself (_cross_repo_hold_resolution: JSON {action:select,selected: