Clarify nightly review and beta coverage without changing gates or schedules.
Cover the real night/beta publication summaries and reject stale category
counts, totals and membership in the browser-guard documentation.
Issue: #767
User-Visible: no
Five places still described the pipeline as it was before code that is
already in dev:
- the S3 hint of the task packet told the author to push the branch, while
the spec lives in the issue body (§2.3, #517) and nothing is pushed
before S5 (§11.8);
- process-gate printed «FAIL п.9 Gates: light» for a trailer nobody writes
or reads, while §10.2 item 9 is the unimplemented release:prerelease
verdict check. The check is removed; a contract test ties every RULES key
to an implemented item of §10.2 and every finding number to a RULES key;
- §10.4 item 4 demanded a heredoc in run:, while #723/#730 and their tests
demand the opposite: commit messages echo line by line into a file,
comment and summary texts come from code;
- the ship merge comment, AUTHOR.md, REVIEWER.md and AGENTS.md named only
the pre-beta document, though since #727 the night reads ship code first;
- the nightly publication committed «docs: ship review for nightly …
перед бетой» with the beta step's Issue: #696. It now has its own
subject (the document name), body and Issue: #727; the beta message is
unchanged.
The browser-guard inventory note still said growth above 200 fails
mutation-gate --check; since #699 it is a guideline and --check warns. Its
counts now match the inventory: 205, lifecycle 90.
Issue: #748
User-Visible: no
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_018qZfe7YS4rqEMKoVeS3GKd
The weekly process metrics weigh tracks and the nightly ship review in the
order quality, speed, tokens (#707), but the third axis had no source: the
claude-code-action step hides usage from the Actions log on purpose, nothing
read its execution_file, and the #728 reader printed "no data" every week.
scripts/model-usage.mjs is the single module that builds and parses the line:
`<!-- hp:usage input_tokens=N output_tokens=N cache_creation_input_tokens=N
cache_read_input_tokens=N num_turns=N -->` (sums over every model in the last
`result` message, `result.usage` when modelUsage is absent) or
`<!-- hp:usage-none reason=<code> -->`. Only the result message is read; the
rest of the file holds tool results, and no byte of it is printed.
A new step right after Review in both model_review jobs (always(),
continue-on-error) hands the line out as the job output `usage`. Usage is a
reporting figure like the stage duration, so it travels as a job output and
not through the sealed artifact: REQUIRED_FILES and the #556 gate are
unchanged. Publication treats the line as untrusted input and writes the
normalized form as the last line of the anchor block (review-doc-guard
--anchor --usage=) or right after the SHIP-REVIEW block; empty becomes
reason=missing, anything off-format reason=invalid.
The #728 reader now takes the line only from the machine block: a reviewer
quoting the previous round in prose no longer doubles its usage, and
"no data" is counted as missing, never as zero. PROCESS.md §10.4 documents
the source, the format and why it is a job output.
Issue: #737
User-Visible: no
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_018qZfe7YS4rqEMKoVeS3GKd
After #705 and #723 two more workflow bodies still treated every failed
push as a moved dev: the SHIP-REVIEW publication (_ship-review.yml) retried
three times with "dev went ahead", and the derived-artifacts bot commit
(_beta-derived.yml) told the release manager to rerun the workflow. A
refusal by GitHub itself - a token without the workflow right, a branch
rule, a hook - is cured by neither, and neither step said what GitHub
answered.
Both pushes now keep stderr and hand it to the #705 classifier through the
same CLI (merge-candidate.mjs --push-refusal). A stale lease keeps the old
behaviour: another attempt for the ship review, the rerun advice for the
derived artifacts. Any other outcome stops the step at once: the log gets
the git answer and the step summary gets the reason and the git answer
without secrets (--summary, refusalSummary with the new ship-review and
beta-derived labels). The classifier comes from dev, as for the other steps
of these bodies: both jobs check out dev, and the ship review resets to
origin/dev before every attempt. The ship review commit message is built
line by line into a file instead of a heredoc, as in #723. The thin callers
ship-review.yml and beta-derived.yml are untouched.
The rebase guard in _process.yml also writes the refusal reason to its step
summary now (--summary, label "rebase"); a stale lease writes none.
test/publish-push-refusal.test.mjs runs both steps as they are with real
bash and real git in temporary repositories (moved dev = a real neighbour
push, GitHub refusal = recorded stderr with a token, a credential URL and
an Authorization header); on the old bodies 10 of its 12 new tests fail.
The #705 execution tests of the rebase guard in rebase-generated.test.mjs
now also read the step summary. PROCESS.md names the two steps next to the
Issue: #730
User-Visible: no
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_018qZfe7YS4rqEMKoVeS3GKd
Ship tasks merge without a model review and their code was first read by
the batch review right before a beta: one session over the whole range,
ten to forty-five minutes on the release path, days after the merge. The
gate also knew a single document (SHIP-REVIEW-<tag>.md) and covered tasks
by number only, so a commit that landed after the review under the same
trailer still counted as read.
- scripts/ship-review.mjs: the patch set of a task is the sorted
`git patch-id --stable` of its range commits, without `Release:`
commits (the beta candidate carries every Issue: of the line) and
commits touching only docs/reviews/**; the diff options are explicit
so a local git config cannot change it. shipCoverage rates every ship
task from the documents of the same base (candidate and origin/dev,
latest publication wins): clean, high, stale, none; documents without
`patches` cover by number. `tag=nightly` is a reserved mode: the
candidate is required, the document is
SHIP-REVIEW-<base>-dev-<sha12>.md, only none/stale tasks are read and
nothing runs when nothing is uncovered. The beta reads the same delta
(force=true reads everything, as before); the brief names what the
night already read. The gate refuses none/stale with the command and
keeps the High refusal with force=true; all clean passes without a tag
document. The machine block gains `mode` and `patches` at its end.
comment-high writes one line per task of a nightly document with High,
once per document (hp:ship-review-high).
- _ship-review.yml: prepare refuses nightly without a candidate before
defaulting to the dev tip, computes the document from base and SHA and
no longer reads a prepare failure behind `| tee` as "no ship tasks";
publish takes mode and patches from prepare, never from the model
result; a new step comments High at night with HP_PROCESS_TOKEN.
- _nightly.yml: the Validate run SHA is a separate step output before
the wait; a new job dispatches ship-review.yml -f tag=nightly on it
whatever Validate's outcome, waits only for the run to appear and
never colours the night. Thin files in main are unchanged.
- reviews-index/reviews-archive: the nightly name is a ship document
with nightly: true; a beta base archives with its line, a stable base
with the nearest archived line newer than the base, or stays.
- PROCESS.md §11.7, §10.4 and REVIEWER.md describe the nightly mode,
patch set, coverage and beta delta; the digest test pins the key rule.
Tests run the prepare, publish and comment steps and the nightly steps
on real bash with real git in temporary repositories; only push
transport and gh are faked.
Issue: #727
User-Visible: no
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_018qZfe7YS4rqEMKoVeS3GKd
`workflow_dispatch` runs the file from the chosen ref, but GitHub lists a
workflow and accepts a dispatch (button, `gh workflow run`, API) only when
its file exists on the default branch. `ship-review.yml` (#696) and
`beta-derived.yml` (#697) lived only in `dev`, so neither could be started
at all, and the comment "the file runs from `--ref dev`, no mirror in
`main` needed" was wrong. Both beta steps are needed before the next
promotion would bring them to `main`.
They now follow the #623 layout instead of a full copy in `main`: a thin
caller (trigger, dispatch inputs, run-name, permission ceiling, concurrency)
calls `_ship-review.yml` / `_beta-derived.yml` at `@dev` with
`secrets: inherit`. A full copy would either need a mirror on every edit or
drift silently, and a dispatch from `main` (the button's default) would run
the stale copy; the thin caller runs the dev body from any ref. The caller
ceiling is the union of the body jobs' permissions (#556): ship-review
`contents: read` + `issues: read`, beta-derived `contents: read` +
`actions: read`; writes to `dev` stay with HP_PROCESS_TOKEN as before.
`workflow_sync` in validate.yml now compares eight files, and
test/default-branch-workflows.test.mjs lists the two dispatch-only files
explicitly with the reason checked (only `workflow_dispatch`). Workflow
tests and the #697 provenance mutant read the bodies. PROCESS.md §10.4,
§8 and §11.7 say how these are run and that a new thin file is mirrored
into `main` before it is merged into `dev`.
Issue: #716
User-Visible: no
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_018qZfe7YS4rqEMKoVeS3GKd
Matysh