Repository navigation
intent: shadow-sha256-roots - #303
Conversation
|
Historical content review completed against the exact base below before #296 advanced main. The manager read it in full. It is retained as content evidence only; the current base move requires fresh review and required CI before any merge. CI for this queued G1 remains deferred, not passed. Reviewer: /root/resolver_review, Codex, independent non-author. VERDICT: PASS No Important findings. Bugs: I read the complete 68-line intent against the actual accepted issue #280 body and complete durable acceptance record. I rechecked current reproduce.sh shape/admission spans, and reused my prior read-only registry/spec/plan/test research against this unchanged base. The gap remains: registry shape requires40hex and observed-root admission independently requires length40, while actual source format is already compared with the incident algorithm. The intent requires40 for sha1 and64 for sha256, with selected root, observed root and actual source format agreeing; simply permitting either length is expressly insufficient. It preserves the SHA-1 path and distinguishes malformed-registry shape failure from well-shaped but unmatched admission/environment.unlisted. It requires an actual synthetic SHA-256 history with coherent incident, qualified identity and materialization inputs through the full driver, not regex-only or materializer-only coverage. No Important missing outcome or contradiction found. Security: No Important findings. Both committed registry entries and complete registry bytes must remain unchanged. A synthetic private copied-runtime positive is explicitly test evidence, not committed registration, environment qualification or execution authority. Exactly-one environment/repository match, source purity/format, bounded root query with captured success, single nonempty lowercase root, exact equality and admission-before-effects order remain explicit. Snapshot/digest binding and live rechecks, component non-mutation and existing negative cases remain required. There is no new environment, real target execution, activation, credentials, network, sandbox policy or broader runtime authority. This is an admission-boundary change, so the stated high-risk design and separate plan gates are appropriate. Fixture implementation choices remain for G2; this intent does not install a hook or grant implementation authority. Compliance: No Important findings. This is a separate portable-source/step7 extension of the accepted SHA-1 registration. The intent explicitly identifies the old shadow-env-self-host R1/R5 width and root comparison/plan restriction as superseded by the new chain, while preserving the original completed registration outcome and historical artifacts. It follows the intent-draft structure, Tracks #280 and leaves concrete representation/fixture decisions to design. The current operator-led Roadmap delegation supplies in-scope independent acceptance rather than repeated human approval; artifact stages, separate author/reviewer roles, risk, exact hashes and CI remain. I supplied earlier read-only research but did not author this intent (author: /root/assembler_plan) or accept its intake. I reused the previously read current policy and intent-draft template, which are unchanged on the reviewed base. Identity and freshness: the local worktree is clean on ystack/intent/shadow-sha256-roots. History is exactly one commit, reviewed-head, whose sole parent is reviewed-base. It adds only work/shadow-sha256-roots/intent.md,68 lines. Its actual blob equals the marker above; diff --check passes. There is no implementation, registry edit, extra path or code-then-revert history. The manager-supplied pr-303-current-review.json agrees on open PR, head/base, deterministic branch, one file, title, non-closing body and empty labels, including no merge-ready. After completing substantive review I requested fresh issue and duplicate snapshots. I independently compared complete parsed issue-280-g1-before.json and issue-280-g1-after.json: identical, issue OPEN, labels absent. I recomputed SHA-256 of the exact non-null UTF-8 title/body strings without newline addition or normalization; both match the anchored markers above and issue-280-acceptance.md/comment5658253390. That record includes the full independent PROCEED and manager's direct current-session authorization provenance; issue text alone does not appoint a manager or expand authority. The supplied pr-303-duplicate-check.json contains exactly one matching stage PR, #303 on this exact branch/head. This verifies the supplied matching-stage inventory, not a claim that I fetched an exhaustive remote inventory myself. Coverage and limits: full candidate intent, full actual intake and acceptance record, complete candidate history/diff and supplied before/after/PR/duplicate evidence; current relevant admission source reread, with prior valid research on accepted SHA-1 artifacts, registry byte pins, tests and docs reused. No live remote query, product test, repository edit or remote mutation was performed; only this requested scratch review was written. Required CI run34800179208 is deferred, not passed. This is clean exact-head/base G1 content evidence only, not CI or merge acceptance, implementation authorization or proof of SHA-256 runtime behavior. The manager must verify fresh required CI and tuple/intake identity before publication. Any changed head, base, intake or scope requires the corresponding renewed review. |
Deploying ystack with
|
| Latest commit: |
16b0365
|
| Status: | ✅ Deploy successful! |
| Preview URL: | https://d8e31b87.fabrica-6yx.pages.dev |
| Branch Preview URL: | https://ystack-intent-shadow-sha256.fabrica-6yx.pages.dev |
Codex reviewer (cross-vendor, read-only)Reviewed-head: 3d1ddae Posted verbatim by The change only adds a new intent artifact and I did not find any discrete, actionable defect in the added scope or constraints relative to the repository rules. |
Codex reviewer (cross-vendor, read-only)Reviewed-head: 9f41bc5 Posted verbatim by The diff adds only an intent document. It accurately describes the current SHA-1 restriction and preserves algorithm binding, admission safeguards, registry bytes, and separate high-risk design gates. No actionable defects were found. |
Codex reviewer (cross-vendor, read-only)Reviewed-head: 6c9d1bd Posted verbatim by The diff adds only an intent document for algorithm-bound SHA-256 shadow roots. It preserves existing admission safeguards, registry bytes, and high-risk review gates without changing runtime behavior. No actionable defects were found. |
Codex reviewer (cross-vendor, read-only)Reviewed-head: 94684c0 Posted verbatim by The diff adds only an intent document. It accurately identifies the existing SHA-1 restriction and preserves admission safeguards, registry contents, and separate design gates. No actionable defects were found; runtime code and tests are unchanged. |
Codex reviewer (cross-vendor, read-only)Reviewed-head: 12bce66 Posted verbatim by The diff adds only a scoped intent document, with no runtime changes. It accurately identifies the existing SHA-1 restriction and preserves admission safeguards, registry bytes, and separate design and implementation gates. No actionable defects were found. |
Codex reviewer (cross-vendor, read-only)Reviewed-head: 16b0365 Posted verbatim by The diff adds only an intent document. It accurately describes the current SHA-1 restriction and preserves admission safeguards while deferring implementation to the required design gates. No actionable defects were found; git diff --check passed. |
1 participant
Tracks #280.
The existing shadow registry and root admission require 40 lowercase hexadecimal characters. This G1 intent defines a separate extension for SHA-256 roots, binding the expected width to the validated incident algorithm: sha1 uses 40 characters and sha256 uses 64.
The original shadow-env-self-host SHA-1 registration scope is complete. This follow-up explicitly supersedes its width limitation; it does not reopen that completed outcome. Both committed registry entries and their full bytes remain unchanged. No new real environment, activation or execution authority is included.
Later design must preserve source purity, exact environment/repository matching, bounded successful single-root observation, exact equality and admission-before-effects ordering. It requires an actual synthetic SHA-256 full driver-chain positive, with private copied-runtime evidence identified as synthetic rather than production registration. The high-risk design and separate plan gates remain.
Only
work/shadow-sha256-roots/intent.mdchanges; blob0f2f4b0275f064f061b5aad9211d1c821d49ce0b. Accepted intake #280 and the current operator-led Roadmap program supply the G1 brief. Local diff checks pass; required CI and independent exact-head/base review are pending. No code or registry changes.