docs(specs): #85 bug prebuild — canary PR body in reviewer context #363

Merged

pdurlej merged 1 commit from claude/fork-C1-canary-pr-body-context-bug into main

2026-05-23 09:19:09 +02:00

claude commented

2026-05-18 08:16:51 +02:00

Collaborator

Summary

Fork C1 retry (2026-05-18) of work lost in 2026-05-17 fork-anchor collision. Per dispatch template v0.1 (PR #356), worktree-isolated at /Users/pd/Developer/iskra-platform-2026-04-30-fork-C1.

Bug shape (per Codex 2026-05-17 feedback) — reproduction + hypothesis ranking + minimal fix surface + acceptance + tests. Not feature Spec Kit.

Smoking gun (root cause CONFIRMED via static trace)

.forgejo/workflows/canary-required.yml:190-201 invokes run_review.py without --pr-description-file flag
run_review.py:405-407 defaults pr_description to ""
control-plane/platformctl/tools/providers/_base.py:199 renders "Description:\n(none)" on empty input
Reviewers see "PR description: none" → false dissent → 3-iter cap on PR #84

Receiver + provider are correct. Bug is single-caller-side.

Files

docs/specs/canary-pr-body-context-bug-prebuild/README.md — overview + safety boundary
docs/specs/canary-pr-body-context-bug-prebuild/01-reproduction.md — repro + evidence from PRs #82 #84
docs/specs/canary-pr-body-context-bug-prebuild/02-hypothesis-ranking.md — 6 hypotheses ranked; #1 confirmed
docs/specs/canary-pr-body-context-bug-prebuild/03-minimal-fix-surface.md — Path A (workflow only) vs Path B (workflow + receiver pr_description_status); recommend B
docs/specs/canary-pr-body-context-bug-prebuild/04-acceptance.md — AC-1..AC-6 + regression fixtures + anti-acceptance
prompts/codex-canary-pr-body-context-bug.md — companion execution prompt

Path B recommendation

Path A fixes the bug. Path B makes future regressions of this fix structurally distinct in agent-readable signal — future cousins reading reviewer output see "(body fetch was not requested by caller — possible regression of #85)" instead of ambiguous (none). Per ADR-0018: agentic-first systems pay the cost of "signal-clean state" once, not at every future investigation.

Cost delta: ~40 LoC additional vs Path A. Still Lite tier.

Recursive validation

Implementation PR's own canary run is the smoke. If the fix works, the PR landing the fix will see its OWN body in its OWN reviewer prompts (no "description: none" dissent). Definitive proof without operating on production traffic.

Safety / production boundary

This PR prepares implementation only. It does NOT authorize runtime mutation, production restart, credential changes, sacred-path modification, or any platformctl apply invocation.

Implementation slice lands as a separate Lite-tier PR (likely codex/fix/85-canary-pr-body-context) following canary 3+3 + operator merge per ADR-0007 + ADR-0017 + ADR-0018.

Tier

Trivial per ADR-0007 (docs + execution prompt only; no code/schema/runtime/sacred-path mutation in THIS PR).

Why per ADR-0018

The existing situation (canary reviewers cap-out due to false description: none dissent) is exactly the misleading-signal failure mode ADR-0018 was written to prevent. Cousins reading PR #84's canary output saw high-dissent terminal state and could not distinguish "real review failure" from "input pipeline missing the description". Single-location root-cause fix per ADR-0018.

Refs #85 #82 #84

## Summary Fork C1 retry (2026-05-18) of work lost in 2026-05-17 fork-anchor collision. Per dispatch template v0.1 (PR #356), worktree-isolated at `/Users/pd/Developer/iskra-platform-2026-04-30-fork-C1`. **Bug shape** (per Codex 2026-05-17 feedback) — reproduction + hypothesis ranking + minimal fix surface + acceptance + tests. Not feature Spec Kit. ## Smoking gun (root cause CONFIRMED via static trace) - `.forgejo/workflows/canary-required.yml:190-201` invokes `run_review.py` **without `--pr-description-file` flag** - `run_review.py:405-407` defaults `pr_description` to `""` - `control-plane/platformctl/tools/providers/_base.py:199` renders `"Description:\n(none)"` on empty input - Reviewers see `"PR description: none"` → false dissent → 3-iter cap on PR #84 Receiver + provider are correct. Bug is **single-caller-side**. ## Files - `docs/specs/canary-pr-body-context-bug-prebuild/README.md` — overview + safety boundary - `docs/specs/canary-pr-body-context-bug-prebuild/01-reproduction.md` — repro + evidence from PRs #82 #84 - `docs/specs/canary-pr-body-context-bug-prebuild/02-hypothesis-ranking.md` — 6 hypotheses ranked; #1 confirmed - `docs/specs/canary-pr-body-context-bug-prebuild/03-minimal-fix-surface.md` — Path A (workflow only) vs Path B (workflow + receiver `pr_description_status`); recommend B - `docs/specs/canary-pr-body-context-bug-prebuild/04-acceptance.md` — AC-1..AC-6 + regression fixtures + anti-acceptance - `prompts/codex-canary-pr-body-context-bug.md` — companion execution prompt ## Path B recommendation Path A fixes the bug. **Path B makes future regressions of this fix structurally distinct in agent-readable signal** — future cousins reading reviewer output see `"(body fetch was not requested by caller — possible regression of #85)"` instead of ambiguous `(none)`. Per ADR-0018: agentic-first systems pay the cost of "signal-clean state" once, not at every future investigation. Cost delta: ~40 LoC additional vs Path A. Still Lite tier. ## Recursive validation Implementation PR's own canary run is the smoke. If the fix works, the PR landing the fix will see its OWN body in its OWN reviewer prompts (no `"description: none"` dissent). Definitive proof without operating on production traffic. ## Safety / production boundary **This PR prepares implementation only.** It does NOT authorize runtime mutation, production restart, credential changes, sacred-path modification, or any `platformctl apply` invocation. Implementation slice lands as a separate Lite-tier PR (likely `codex/fix/85-canary-pr-body-context`) following canary 3+3 + operator merge per ADR-0007 + ADR-0017 + ADR-0018. ## Tier **Trivial** per ADR-0007 (docs + execution prompt only; no code/schema/runtime/sacred-path mutation in THIS PR). ## Why per ADR-0018 The existing situation (canary reviewers cap-out due to false `description: none` dissent) is exactly the misleading-signal failure mode ADR-0018 was written to prevent. Cousins reading PR #84's canary output saw high-dissent terminal state and could not distinguish "real review failure" from "input pipeline missing the description". Single-location root-cause fix per ADR-0018. Refs #85 #82 #84

claude added 1 commit

2026-05-18 08:16:52 +02:00

docs(specs): #85 bug prebuild — canary PR body in reviewer context

base-is-main / guard (pull_request) Successful in 1s

Details

canary-required / collect-diff (pull_request) Successful in 4s

Details

patchwarden-pr-sanity / collect-diff (pull_request) Successful in 4s

Details

canary-required / canary (pull_request) Successful in 13s

Details

patchwarden-pr-sanity / sanity (pull_request) Successful in 21s

Details

dc53f6e213

Fork C1 retry (2026-05-18) of work lost in 2026-05-17 fork-anchor
collision. Per dispatch template v0.1 (PR #356), worktree-isolated.

Bug shape (per Codex 2026-05-17 feedback) — NOT feature Spec Kit:
- README.md (overview + safety boundary)
- 01-reproduction.md (steps + evidence from PRs #82, #84)
- 02-hypothesis-ranking.md (6 hypotheses ranked; #1 confirmed
  via static trace)
- 03-minimal-fix-surface.md (Path A: workflow YAML only;
  Path B: + receiver-side pr_description_status — recommended)
- 04-acceptance.md (AC-1..AC-6 + regression fixtures + anti-acceptance)

Plus companion execution prompt:
- prompts/codex-canary-pr-body-context-bug.md

Smoking gun found by static trace:
- .forgejo/workflows/canary-required.yml:190-201 invokes
  run_review.py without --pr-description-file flag
- run_review.py:405-407 defaults pr_description to ""
- _base.py:199 renders "Description:\n(none)" on empty input
- Reviewers see "PR description: none" → false dissent → 3-iter cap
  on PR #84

Bug is single-caller-side. Receiver + provider are correct.
Path B fix makes future regressions structurally distinct in
agent-readable signal (per ADR-0018: future cousins must read
green as green).

Tier: Trivial per ADR-0007 (prebuild = docs + execution prompt;
no code/schema/runtime/sacred-path mutation in THIS PR).
Implementation slice lands as separate Lite PR.

This PR prepares implementation only. It does NOT authorize
runtime mutation, production restart, credential changes, or cleanup.

Refs #85 #82 #84