Repository navigation
feat(pr-pipeline): tidy a small single-area change inside resolve-issue before its one push - #10224
Conversation
Lane-Activity: work-resolve-issue/resolve-issue
|
claude-security-review reviewed Security review: PR #10224 (tidy in resolve-issue, Phase 1 of #8485)critical-findings: 0 I found no security issues. The PR does touch trust controls. It adds four skills to what the resolve-issue session may invoke, through What the widening is. The Why I found no widening in authority.
Manifest.
Instruction surfaces. Spend (not a hold). Tidy spends up to 25% of the lane's existing turn cap (prepaid or subscription usage), plus the extra check re-run. It adds no billed resource or plan change. Not verified. The PR says the node tests and the shell pairing test were not run. This review checked logic only, and I executed nothing. I did not read the |
|
claude-security-review holds this pull request for a person (critical-security) at Trust-control change: claude-lane: claude-security-review |
|
claude-review reviewed No findings. I read the full diff (22 files) and the PR context, and did not run any tests or checks, because this lane has no shell. What I checked
Unverified by me (the PR also lists these as not run)
Notes, not counted as findings
|
Lane-Activity: pr-unblock/fix-ci
Lane-Activity: pr-unblock/fix-ci
|
Unattended merge: native auto-merge leaves this pull request unarmed at head |
kyle-sexton
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Owner decision 2026-10-26 ~22:3xZ in the hub session: merge the PRs currently held for the owner, security-flagged or otherwise. Approving head 790239c under that decision; this lifts its hold paths (resolve-config) per merge-holds.mjs. Still open: no ci-lanes success on this head, and the CRITICAL review-lane thread on resolve.mjs (tidy field) is unaddressed in code.
main now builds an issue lane's protected-path rules from the base's apply-patch and patch-rules.json; the tidy tests' own base lacked them. One helper now copies them for every issue-lane base. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
claude-security-review holds this pull request for a person (critical-security) at Trust-control change: docs/conventions/pr-pipeline.yaml and .github/actions/resolve-config/resolve.mjs feed the token broker, and the diff does not narrow what the broker grants. The code shows no grant widening (effect stays read; tidy is only carried onto the selected activity), but it does widen which skills the untrusted-input issue lane may invoke. A person should confirm owner decision (a) covers exactly these skills. claude-lane: claude-security-review |
# Conflicts: # plugins/code-tidying/.claude-plugin/plugin.json
Lane-Activity: pr-unblock/resolve-conflicts
bad82b1
|
Unattended merge: native auto-merge leaves this pull request unarmed at head |
|
Unattended merge: native auto-merge leaves this pull request unarmed at head |
|
The unattended merge path armed native auto-merge at head |
Post-merge mutation testingKilled 0, survived 1, timeout 0, no coverage 0, invalid 0, not run 3.
Surviving mutants
The run's summary has the full report. |
|
Decision recorded. Cost: approve the resolve-issue tidy block (turn-share 25, cutoffs 10 files / 300 lines / 1 area) in docs/conventions/pr-pipeline.yaml for #10224, at head bad82b1. pr-unblock's merge of main at that head moved the |
Refs: #8485
Summary
Opened by the work-resolve-issue lane. The run's own summary:
Remaining work
Not verified
Fix
tidyleaf property (entry, passes, turn-share 1-50, cutoffs with max-files, max-lines, max-areas, shared-paths); allowed only on a read skill with applied-by.patch and no preparetidyonto the selected activityVerification
The runner ran each check from the base copy against a21c5ac:
The run reports:
commandthat a deny rule matches, or that is not allowed outside auto mode, aborts the whole skill invocation; so the tidy passes are only skills with no pre-compute line or one whose script the lane allows (docs-hygiene:audit-noiseLeft out: the items under Not verified.
Related
#8485
Cost decision: #10224 (comment)
Cost decision: #10224 (comment)
Cost decision: #10224 (comment)