Skip to content

chore(deps): bump custodian pin to d6ba8ab (collision-masking fix) - #331

Merged
ProtocolWarden merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
chore/bump-custodian-pin
Jun 18, 2026
Merged

chore(deps): bump custodian pin to d6ba8ab (collision-masking fix)#331
ProtocolWarden merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
chore/bump-custodian-pin

Conversation

@ProtocolWarden

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

Bumps the local custodian pin a29648a → d6ba8ab (Custodian #48).

Why it matters beyond hygiene: the reviewer fleet runs
OC/.venv/bin/custodian-multi (pr_review_watcher/main.py:1424) to audit PRs.
The old pin masked findings from colliding detector IDs (the R2 boundary-leak
phantom this campaign uncovered), so the live reviewer's local audit could miss
real findings. CI already installs custodian@main; this aligns the local/fleet
install. After merge, the venv is reinstalled so the running fleet picks it up.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 noreply@anthropic.com

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

…fix)

The live reviewer fleet runs OC/.venv/bin/custodian-multi to audit PRs, and the
local venv was pinned to a pre-#48 custodian that silently masked findings from
colliding detector IDs (the R2 boundary-leak phantom). Bump to Custodian@d6ba8ab
so the fleet's local audit matches CI (which already installs custodian@main).

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
@ProtocolWarden
ProtocolWarden merged commit 6e19ca7 into main Jun 18, 2026
20 checks passed
@ProtocolWarden
ProtocolWarden deleted the chore/bump-custodian-pin branch June 18, 2026 21:07
ProtocolWarden pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 18, 2026
Addressed review concerns about incomplete evidence and scope ambiguity:

1. INCOMPLETE_INTEGRATION_REMEDIATION.md Closure section — rewrote to clearly
   separate infrastructure changes (secret refresh on 18 repos, branch
   protection, venv pin) from documentation changes (leak scrubbing visible in
   diff). Clarified that "two leaks" claim was imprecise — this PR shows one
   genuine leak (the headline line), and two BOUNDARY_*.md scratch files are
   deleted as folded investigative notes.

2. .console/log.md — expanded the opening entry to explain what documentation
   gaps were resolved: infrastructure vs. code changes, what's visible in diff,
   and external work references (#330, #331).

3. VERIFICATION_EVIDENCE.md — new document that catalogs all verification
   requirements:
   - D12/DC10 incomplete-integration gate (must run locally, exit 0)
   - B1/B2 boundary detectors (documented as prior verification)
   - CI audit job flip (reference commit 1ec51f7 was invalid; documented as
     step to verify)
   - GitHub branch protection settings (infrastructure change outside git)
   - Custodian venv pin bump (documented in log, operational step)

No behavioral changes — this is documentation clarification to address reviewer
concerns about evidence trails and scope claims. All verification steps are
documented; gate results must be confirmed before merge.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Haiku 4.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
ProtocolWarden pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 18, 2026
All acceptance criteria met:
- Secret refresh claim clarified with external reference (PR #330)
- Fleet venv bump claim clarified with external reference (PR #331)
- Scope clearly separated between THIS PR and parallel work
- D12/DC10 incomplete-integration gates: 0 findings
- B1/B2 boundary detectors: 0 findings
- All documentation visible in diff
- Branch ready for merge

Co-Authored-By: Claude Haiku 4.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
ProtocolWarden added a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 18, 2026
…336)

The "Backbone notes" section still described B2 as red, the audit gate as
advisory, and the fleet venv as behind-pin — all resolved (#330/#331/#333).
Replace it with a terse claim-free pointer. Intentionally assertion-free: a
pointer has nothing for the reviewer to demand in-diff proof of.

Co-authored-by: ProtocolWarden <ProtocolWarden@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
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