Skip to content

chore(agents): classify reconcile as not governed (no MCTL_TOKEN) - #2109

Merged
mashkovd merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
chore/reconcile-not-governed
Oct 23, 2026
Merged

mashkovd merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
chore/reconcile-not-governed

Conversation

@mashkovd

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Refs #1980 (mctlhq/.github#181 governance tails). Draft: waits for the owner's OK to keep reconcile non-governed.

The reconcile template (run_shepherd --reconcile) has no model session and maps no MCTL_TOKEN; it only rewrites .status.yaml, which commit-and-push re-checks. Setting MCTL_POLICY_APPROVALS=mctl-api there could not even authenticate, so any REQUIRE_APPROVAL lookup would fail closed. Instead of leaving it rollout: staged, classify it governed: false with the no-mctl-token boundary, which tests/test_policy_checkpoint_coverage.py checks mechanically (CI fails if the template ever maps MCTL_TOKEN).

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

The reconcile template runs run_shepherd --reconcile with no model
session and maps no MCTL_TOKEN, so the mctl-api approvals backend could
not even authenticate there. Classify it governed: false with the
mechanically checked no-mctl-token boundary instead of leaving it staged.

Refs #1980
@mashkovd
mashkovd marked this pull request as ready for review October 23, 2026 22:21
@claude

claude Bot commented Oct 23, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Claude finished @mashkovd's task in 13s —— View job


Review of PR #2109

Approved. I found no P1, P2 or P3 issues.

  • no-mctl-token is a valid boundary in tests/test_policy_checkpoint_coverage.py.
  • cwft-mctl-agents-reconcile.yaml does not reference MCTL_TOKEN, so the CI check on this surface will pass.
  • The new entry follows the same format as the other governed: false entries.

The PR body says it waits for the owner's OK to keep reconcile non-governed. That sign-off is still needed before merge.

@claude claude Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Coverage-manifest reclassification only; boundary is valid, matches test checks, and the reconcile template maps no MCTL_TOKEN. (Draft note: owner OK still pending per PR body.)

@github-actions

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Antigravity (agy) review — informational

Model: gemini-3.8-flash-high · commit bab0810.

No significant issues found.

@mashkovd

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

Owner OK given on 2026-10-24 for all five staged-surface PRs (#2105 implement, #2106 run, #2107 shepherd, #2108 worker-control; #2109 keeps reconcile non-governed). Merging one at a time; each governed surface is then checked on a live run for POLICY_DECISION lines with the mctl-api backend, and rolled back if it breaks.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant