jason.woltjeandClaude Opus 5.5
4f28c09069
Verdict comment 26765, queue rev 140. R1: message.send and role.revoke verbs use gated decisions without consuming them. R2: a cross-role decision authorizes without limit once policy makes the action gated. Two rulings for Sage on cross-role reuse and class drift. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <[email protected]>
38 lines
1.9 KiB
Markdown
38 lines
1.9 KiB
Markdown
Row 43, S2b, round 1: **request changes** (Darkwing)
|
|
|
|
Candidate `candidate-manifest.sha256` `1b4b2f20…`, three files under
|
|
`packages/bus/`. Full record:
|
|
`agents/darkwing/work/slice1-s2b-review/review-r1.md`.
|
|
|
|
The patch applies at `65d78d12` and the manifest checks 3/3. Tests pass
|
|
48/48 on Node 26 and on Node 24. Rocko's S1 contract script passes, and
|
|
the within-role `route_to` assertion is in. Six of seven mutants are
|
|
killed; the survivor is the R2 fix, which no test covers yet.
|
|
|
|
The `authorize` change holds. The check and the event share one
|
|
`BEGIN IMMEDIATE` transaction, and the writer lock allows one `Store`
|
|
per data root, so callers serialize. The `decision.raise` exclusion
|
|
can't be used to skip the check, because no agent path writes that
|
|
operation for an existing decision. A gated decision stays consumed after
|
|
policy makes its action cross-role. The README's decision 62 note claims
|
|
nothing the decision doesn't.
|
|
|
|
Required:
|
|
- R1: the `message.send` and `role.revoke` verbs use gated decisions
|
|
without consuming them. A gated `message.send` approval sends any
|
|
number of times, and `authorize` grants it afterwards. Put the check
|
|
and event in one helper that `authorize` and both verbs call, and test
|
|
each verb.
|
|
- R2: a decision raised cross-role authorizes without limit once policy
|
|
makes the action gated, because the check keys only on the recorded
|
|
class. Check consumption when either class is gated, and test it.
|
|
|
|
For Sage, two rulings, either of which settles R2:
|
|
1. Cross-role reuse matters. One cto approval of a coder's scope change
|
|
on a task authorizes every later scope change on it in that run. I
|
|
recommend every decision-backed authorization be single-use.
|
|
2. Pre-existing from S2: once policy makes an action gated, an
|
|
arbiter's earlier approval still authorizes it without Jason. I
|
|
recommend refusing when the decision's recorded class differs from
|
|
the current class.
|