Skip to content

Update the new-WSL Harbor profile to 0.24.0 - #927

Merged
seathatflowsinourveins merged 11 commits into
mainfrom
codex/ns2604-harbor-0.24-20261009
Oct 10, 2026
Merged

seathatflowsinourveins merged 11 commits into
mainfrom
codex/ns2604-harbor-0.24-20261009

Conversation

@seathatflowsinourveins

@seathatflowsinourveins seathatflowsinourveins commented Oct 9, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Scope

Update the new-WSL Harbor recommendation to 0.24.0 across the direct CLI owner and Inspect Scout ATIF companion. Profile, plan, executable mirrors, source records, generated projections and handbook agree. Preserve the historical 0.23.0 owner selection separately from the dated current maintenance amendment. Operational guidance binds the current source receipt and the complete inverse.

Historical regression inputs are retained as byte fixtures with explicit PR #927 pre-squash capture provenance, independent of the old branch commit's continued availability. Length, SHA-256 and Git blob ID checks precede expected content rejection, whose message is specific to the intended guard. A repository revision declared by a fixture manifest must be main-reachable when history is available. The check resolves the exact remote-main commit before testing ancestry, so a local branch named origin/main cannot shadow it. A native synthetic-repository regression exercises accepted-main, rejected-branch and unknown-object outcomes under that shadow.

  • Base commit: 86bb669ad6c81b9adafdb222d545a1bf2aa95218, including Raise jCodeMunch file cap to 8000 with measured consolidation headroom #962's raised file cap.
  • Publication sequence: rebase the original reviewed head onto the cap-containing current main, then one forward test/citation commit. The initially prepared c8a29c3 attempt was unpushed and explicitly discarded under the retarget cue; final acceptance was rerun on the replacement target.
  • Published candidate head: 8bc2b65c1c8854fd9619cf501063596799067c5b, with the single optional P3 commit directly on rebased reviewed head 0e1e0c113aadb0365183bbff5ce4174a825cdc2c.
  • Lane: lane:foundation.
  • Owned paths: Harbor profile/owner/plan inputs and mirrors, source records, generated defaults/handbook, telemetry references, source/content contracts and retained fixtures, OSV fixture inventory and evidence bindings.
  • Native regeneration resolves only the conflicting handbook receipt and evidence registry. All other reviewed tree content matches the native merged reference, apart from the optional synthetic ancestry test/resolved-SHA change and exact blob-header citation. Existing historical receipt rows from main and the reviewed branch are preserved.

SOTA sources

Evidence-class table

Claim Evidence class Command / receipt
Harbor release/source/wheel provenance source_review / local_integration Existing dated Harbor receipt and retained artifact evidence
Missing/corrupt fixture input or an unrelated guard exception cannot satisfy semantic rejection synthetic Existing before/after controls and targeted guard assertions
Exact remote-main ancestry cannot be replaced by a shadowing local origin/main branch local_integration Native synthetic Git repository: control red before resolved-SHA change, then full 14-test contract module green
Fixture bytes, rows and reviewed source content survive the landing rebase local_integration Whole Git-tree comparison to native reviewed-head/main merge; only four explained paths differ
Main and reviewed-branch historical receipt records remain local_integration Exact set preservation for 17 validation, 47 regeneration and 14 previous-output rows
Complete touched/source/inventory modules pass local_integration 361 tests, exit 0, four existing skips
FULL actual-target repository integrity local_integration 70 components / 11,392 files / four profiles / 239 receipts, exit 0 before commit and at the clean head
Harbor/Scout installation or runtime acceptance — Unrun

Local commands run

git rebase 86bb669ad6c81b9adafdb222d545a1bf2aa95218
Retargeted publication rebase of the original reviewed head; native continuations resolve only the two known generated hash carriers
python3 -B scripts/build_new_wsl_handbook.py --write
exit 0; receipt/current hashes derived through native render/digest
python3 -B scripts/evidence_manifest.py --write
exit 0; affected bindings supplied through native register_file
python3 -B -m unittest tests.test_harbor_currency_contracts.HarborPredecessorEvidenceTests.test_repository_revision_uses_remote_main_despite_a_shadowing_local_branch
Before resolved-SHA fix: exit 1, one test/one failed subcase
python3 -B -m unittest tests.test_harbor_currency_contracts
After fix and at clean final head: exit 0, 14 tests, no skips
python3 -B -m unittest tests.test_harbor_currency_contracts tests.test_new_wsl_definitive_defaults tests.test_new_wsl_handbook tests.test_adoption_docs_consistency tests.test_evidence_manifest tests.test_osv_lockfile_coverage tests.test_release_pin_contents
exit 0, 361 tests, four existing skips
python3 -B scripts/validate.py
Actual-target FULL final candidate and clean committed head: each exit 0
gitleaks git --redact=100 --log-opts='86bb669ad6c81b9adafdb222d545a1bf2aa95218..HEAD'
PR range only, 100% redaction, exit 0/no leaks
git diff --cached --check
exit 0

The original Git-free fixture route remains and performs no old-commit lookup. The new synthetic control exercises the repository-pin ancestry branch independently of the pre-squash manifest's early return. The earlier whole-unittest-shard qualification remains recorded; this module evidence does not relabel it as a broad pass. An initial 60-second context executor timeout produced no suite verdict; the native shell run completed the whole 361-test affected suite in 140 seconds. Fresh required hosted CI applies after the landing rebase, not the earlier conflicting-head rollup.

Decision record

Harbor profile decision and complete inverse. The fixture manifest records archival capture provenance and version-specific Git/unittest contracts. Private landing receipts retain the original baseline, native whole-tree same-change comparison, regression and complete FULL validation logs.

Host evidence

No host receipt or platform-status change. Tests and native Git commands establish repository contract/integrity evidence. No provider, agent, broker, gateway or Harbor/Scout runtime operation was performed.

Checklist

@seathatflowsinourveins seathatflowsinourveins added the lane:foundation Foundation lane: Claude/Codex setup, hosts, memory, RAG, research, workers label Oct 9, 2026
@seathatflowsinourveins
seathatflowsinourveins marked this pull request as ready for review October 9, 2026 20:41

@chatgpt-codex-connector chatgpt-codex-connector Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: e0ed5ac880

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

  • Open a pull request for review
  • Mark a draft as ready
  • Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

@chatgpt-codex-connector

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codex Review Summary

This comment shows the latest Codex review activity on this pull request.

Review Status Commit Review trigger
📝 Code Review ✅ Completed 2026-10-09T20:46:55.615929Z e0ed5ac Draft marked ready
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

  • Open a pull request for review
  • Mark a draft as ready
  • Comment "@codex review" or "@codex security review".

Codex reacts with 👀 while any review is running, comments if it has suggestions, and reacts with 👍 once all reviews finish with no findings.

@seathatflowsinourveins
seathatflowsinourveins force-pushed the codex/ns2604-harbor-0.24-20261009 branch from e0ed5ac to b67a282 Compare October 9, 2026 21:57
@socket-security

socket-security Bot commented Oct 9, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Dependency limit exceeded — report not shown.

This pull request scan exceeded the 10,000-dependency limit applied to this scan, so the results are incomplete and may be inaccurate. To avoid reporting false positives, Socket has not posted a report.

Upgrade your plan to raise the dependency limit and get complete reports, or view the partial scan in the dashboard.

Socket is always free for open source. If this is a non-commercial open source project, contact us to request a free Team account.

@seathatflowsinourveins
seathatflowsinourveins force-pushed the codex/ns2604-harbor-0.24-20261009 branch from 057cb08 to 8bc2b65 Compare October 10, 2026 09:27
@seathatflowsinourveins
seathatflowsinourveins merged commit ff69fc8 into main Oct 10, 2026
38 checks passed
@seathatflowsinourveins
seathatflowsinourveins deleted the codex/ns2604-harbor-0.24-20261009 branch October 10, 2026 09:55
seathatflowsinourveins added a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 12, 2026
Fix the decision record of the compounding rule text,
docs/decisions/2026-10-11-compounding-rule-text.md. The six rule
surfaces do not change.

- Approval: the owner approved section 1's proposal, the first
  sentence, at 22:01Z. The second sentence was presented as an optional
  clause and the owner's answer did not single it out; the command
  center (CC) included it under the owner's delegation, because it
  restates the owner's own no-dates direction. The owner was told at
  23:44Z, with the option to drop it. The record cites the ruling's
  addendum-01 and the SHA256 of each sentence.
- #172: restated with its recorded supersession at 22:18:17Z, under
  which guard bypasses are follow-ups (research-queue row 23). #1014
  landed as ccff876 with only the one-letter POINTER_VARIABLE suffix.
- PR triage: 3 fold receivers (#878, #927, #958) merged without their
  4 donors (#804, #915, #870, #829), citing the triage's addendum-01.
- What the second sentence leaves in force (F1 of the trading lane's
  read of us-equities-trading #87): it forbids a date as the trigger
  that starts work, and every time bound the contract states as a fact
  or protocol window stays.
- Checks: the budget test's sentence now says what the test does (the
  first GPT read of this PR):
  test_growth_in_any_loaded_file_crosses_the_fixed_budget fills the
  available headroom in each loaded file in turn, verifies that
  equality with the ceiling passes, then appends a two-byte UTF-8
  character and verifies rejection.
- manifests/evidence.json: the record re-registered with register_file.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <[email protected]>
seathatflowsinourveins added a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 12, 2026
…1020)

* Rule text: work compounds through reviewed, cited repository records

Add the compounding sentences of the command center's ruling, section 1
(sentence 1 owner-OK'd at 22:01Z; sentence 2 included under the owner's
delegation, ruling addendum-01), to the "The ecosystem compounds" bullet
on all six always-loaded rule surfaces: AGENTS.md, the portable Claude
block, the Codex template, the scaffold and the two new-WSL carriers,
regenerated with new_wsl_client_config.py --write-blocks.

- tests: a fail-first test that every layer and native renderer carries
  the sentences once, in place (9 failing subtests before the change);
  CORE updated; the Codex top-rule pin re-derived (2,296 bytes); the
  startup byte ceilings raised by a dated comparison to 6,895/7,001.
- docs/decisions/2026-10-11-compounding-rule-text.md: the dated trigger,
  evidence, surfaces, user-level pickup, budget comparison, checks and
  overturn conditions.
- manifests/evidence.json: the changed files re-registered.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <[email protected]>

* Record text: exact approval, #172 supersession, fold count, budget test

Fix the decision record of the compounding rule text,
docs/decisions/2026-10-11-compounding-rule-text.md. The six rule
surfaces do not change.

- Approval: the owner approved section 1's proposal, the first
  sentence, at 22:01Z. The second sentence was presented as an optional
  clause and the owner's answer did not single it out; the command
  center (CC) included it under the owner's delegation, because it
  restates the owner's own no-dates direction. The owner was told at
  23:44Z, with the option to drop it. The record cites the ruling's
  addendum-01 and the SHA256 of each sentence.
- #172: restated with its recorded supersession at 22:18:17Z, under
  which guard bypasses are follow-ups (research-queue row 23). #1014
  landed as ccff876 with only the one-letter POINTER_VARIABLE suffix.
- PR triage: 3 fold receivers (#878, #927, #958) merged without their
  4 donors (#804, #915, #870, #829), citing the triage's addendum-01.
- What the second sentence leaves in force (F1 of the trading lane's
  read of us-equities-trading #87): it forbids a date as the trigger
  that starts work, and every time bound the contract states as a fact
  or protocol window stays.
- Checks: the budget test's sentence now says what the test does (the
  first GPT read of this PR):
  test_growth_in_any_loaded_file_crosses_the_fixed_budget fills the
  available headroom in each loaded file in turn, verifies that
  equality with the ceiling passes, then appends a two-byte UTF-8
  character and verifies rejection.
- manifests/evidence.json: the record re-registered with register_file.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <[email protected]>

---------

Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <[email protected]>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

lane:foundation Foundation lane: Claude/Codex setup, hosts, memory, RAG, research, workers

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant