Three code-review rounds on #220 published a verdict and then failed the
run: the document never reached the branch, so the #171 guard refused
before the label step and neither the merge nor S8-merged happened. The
cause was structural. The document lived as an untracked file inside the
very checkout the reviewer edits while proving that a test can fail, and
restoring that tree — git checkout, git clean — deletes an untracked file.
Spec rounds survived only because they never mutate anything.
The reviewer now writes to REVIEW_DOC under RUNNER_TEMP, outside the
repository, and the publish step copies it into docs/reviews before
committing. Tree cleanup can no longer destroy the artefact, and the
reviewer no longer needs to touch docs/reviews at all.
Verified against a local git fixture on five paths: document outside the
repo with a mutated tree, nothing anywhere (loud failure), document only in
the working copy, document already committed by the reviewer, and a branch
that moved during the review.
Same file as main, byte for byte.
Issue: #220
User-Visible: no
Section 4 now says what the pipeline does: a cycle is a verdict with
blocking findings followed by a return to the author, so a green verdict
consumes nothing — the case that cost #225 an arbitration after a failed
merge forced a rebase and a third attempt.
The canon also separates the two quantities the verdict line carries. The
attempt number names the review document, because two runs sharing a
number would overwrite each other's artefact; the budget counts blocking
cycles only. That is why the document threshold in the process gate sits
above the cycle limit, and why the guard reports a recount of review-4
rather than removing the label itself.
Issue: #227
User-Visible: no
The pipeline punished what it prescribed: after a failed merge it tells the
author to rebase and restore S7-code-review, and that attempt finished the
budget. On #225 a green code review with green CI ended in review-4.
Only yellow and red verdicts spend the budget now; a green verdict returned
nothing and consumes nothing. Attempts and cycles became separate
quantities: the attempt number names the review document, the limit
compares blocking cycles. The exhaustion comment lists what it counted, and
the guard reports a recount instead of stripping review-4 on its own.
Same file as main (41325a8), byte for byte.
Issue: #227
User-Visible: no
The pipeline punished what it prescribed: after a failed merge it tells the
author to rebase and restore S7-code-review, and that attempt finished the
budget. On #225 (light track, limit 2) the sequence yellow, green, rebase
produced review-4 on a task whose code review was green and whose CI was
green, with no product change after the verdict — the owner had to
arbitrate work that was already accepted.
A cycle under section 4 is a verdict with blocking findings followed by a
return to the author, so only yellow and red verdicts spend the budget now.
A green verdict returned nothing and consumes nothing, which also removes
any need to mark rebase re-runs specially.
Attempts and cycles are now separate quantities. The attempt number keeps
naming the document, because two runs sharing a number would overwrite each
other's review artefact, while the limit compares blocking cycles only. The
exhaustion comment lists the verdicts it counted, and the guard no longer
strips review-4 — it reports the recount and leaves the decision with the
owner.
Rule 7 of the process gate follows: its document threshold rises above the
cycle limit, because legitimate attempts can exceed cycles and a threshold
equal to the limit would refuse the very rebase the pipeline demands.
Issue: #227
User-Visible: no
Import of a backup holding PDF attachments: the content resolver parses a url
as a url, and the three mutants guarding it are registered. The user-visible
change is documented in 4a84734, which carries both changelog entries — this
merge adds no behaviour of its own.
Code review r2 green (docs/reviews/CODE-REVIEW-225-r2.md). The third pass was
a rebase over #226, not a fix — owner arbitration on the review-4 the cycle
counter raised for it (PROCESS.md §4; counter defect filed as #227).
Issue: #225
User-Visible: no
Review CODE-REVIEW-225-r1.
M1: urlsplit(url).path was trusted even when the url carried a scheme or an
authority, so "https://evil.example/houseplan_files/files/m1/doc.pdf"
resolved onto a local file while _looks_internal kept calling it external —
the mirror image of the inconsistency this resolver exists to prevent. Only a
same-document reference is resolved by its path now.
M2: the three mutants the spec described are registered in
scripts/mutation-gate.mjs instead of living as a one-off manual run. The
traversal entry drops both structural checks at once on purpose: taken one at
a time the defence is layered (sanitize_marker_id turns ".." into "misc") and
the mutant would be equivalent — established by running it.
Issue: #225
User-Visible: no
A backup holding a PDF attachment could not be imported back: legacy links
carry a cache-buster (".../files/m1/doc.pdf?v=1783170649"), and the resolver
compared the raw tail with its sanitized form, so the query made the name
differ from itself. The reference then read as internal by prefix and
non-canonical by name, which is exactly the combination _content_state must
refuse — every such document failed with invalid_content.
Parse the url as a url: the path addresses the file, the query and the
fragment address the transfer. Path segments keep doing the guarding, so
dropping the query cannot widen what a segment is allowed to be.
Issue: #225
User-Visible: yes
Matysh