Files
stack/docs/reports/code-review/1264-code-review.md
T
2026-08-16 17:37:32 -05:00

60 lines
2.2 KiB
Markdown

# Issue #1264 Independent Code and Security Review
> Scope: uncommitted delivery delta for `fix/1264-fleet-unattended-first-start` against
> `origin/next@476db12b92971634b67fd2057b7577ee5894e449` | Reviewer: Codex CLI via Mosaic review tools
## Initial code review
Command:
```bash
~/.config/mosaic/tools/codex/codex-code-review.sh --uncommitted \
-o /tmp/1264-codex-code-review.json
```
Result: `request-changes`, confidence `0.93`, `20` files reviewed, `0` blockers, `1` should-fix.
Finding: `checkSoul()` trimmed `MOSAIC_AGENT_NAME` for pre-seed roster resolution while later
composition used the original value. A padded exact name could therefore seed identity files and
then fail composition.
Remediation:
- treat any present blank or surrounding-whitespace value as an invalid fleet launch;
- reject it before roster lookup or identity writes; and
- add three real-CLI no-side-effect regressions for leading padding, trailing padding, and empty
values.
## Code re-review
Command:
```bash
~/.config/mosaic/tools/codex/codex-code-review.sh --uncommitted \
-o /tmp/1264-codex-code-rereview.json
```
Result: `approve`, confidence `0.86`, `15` files reviewed, no findings. The review sandbox could run
package typecheck but could not run Vitest because its checkout was read-only and Vite attempted to
create a timestamped config artifact (`EROFS`). This is not scored as test evidence; the executor's
writable worktree independently passed the focused and full suites recorded in the QA report.
## Security review
Final command:
```bash
~/.config/mosaic/tools/codex/codex-security-review.sh --uncommitted \
-o /tmp/1264-codex-security-rereview.json
```
Result: risk `none`, confidence `0.91`, `20` files reviewed, `0` critical/high/medium/low findings.
The review specifically confirmed roster validation before seeding, bounded no-symlink reads,
no-clobber publication, unsafe/padded identity refusal, and fail-closed behavior before runtime.
## Independent PR review gate
Automated review is complete. The PR still requires a formal reviewer who is neither the implementation
seat nor Fred, per the assignment. That review and CI status are recorded in the QA report when
available.