Add unsafe Rust skill V1 and preserve predecessor pilot - #3520
Conversation
Introduce a proof-oriented unsafe Rust authoring and audit skill. Treat safety documentation as an English-language theorem and each SAFETY comment as its proof, with every material premise grounded in exact versioned Rust Reference or standard-library text or recorded conspicuously in the TCB. Require obligation-first review, local invariant composition, adversarial caller reasoning, explicit dependency trust, complete safe-API and configuration surfaces, documented postconditions, and proof-grade audit artifacts. Include the conditional abstraction-design workflow, module-boundary discipline, API-evolution and SemVer analysis, generated-code coverage, TCB and report templates, and a source catalog and evaluation plan. Preserve the paired exploratory smoke test that preceded this V1 snapshot. Ten fresh source-only agents reviewed synthetic vulnerable/fixed code, a historical zerocopy defect/fix pair, and current zerocopy. The treatment retained complete known-defect recall and improved authority, configuration, surface, TCB, and report closure, while the current-code challenge exposed missed version applicability, literal contract clauses, and indirect derivations. The exact predecessor skill archive and several raw pilot artifacts were not retained. Record its digest and results without claiming a byte-exact predecessor-to-V1 diff. The pilot used procedural rather than hardened isolation, one replicate per cell, and cannot establish release readiness. gherrit-pr-id: G6f4nmapfoz5ur4camwh2yhyazexc2lct
Codecov Report✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #3520 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 91.85% 91.85%
=======================================
Files 20 20
Lines 6093 6093
=======================================
Hits 5597 5597
Misses 496 496 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
![chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1144995?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 63e27557e1
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
| > [`runs/2026-07-31-legacy-regression/`](runs/2026-07-31-legacy-regression/), | ||
| > and the 54-run abstraction-design treatment/core-ablation experiment is | ||
| > recorded in | ||
| > [`runs/2026-07-31-abstraction-design-v1/`](runs/2026-07-31-abstraction-design-v1/). |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The plan says these two studies are recorded and relies on the latter's result to characterize the skill, but a repo-wide check of this commit finds only runs/2026-07-30-exploratory-pilot/; both links are therefore broken and the claimed legacy and 54-run results cannot be inspected or reproduced. Include the referenced run directories, or remove the links and conclusions until those artifacts are available.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
| Historical zerocopy and current-zerocopy pilot targets remain Candidate or | ||
| Challenge fixtures. Their results are descriptive until their authority-rooted | ||
| oracles complete the two-reviewer admission process. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
These lines still classify the historical target as a Candidate awaiting two-reviewer admission, while manifest.md lines 103–105 says the atom was promoted after the second review and historical-result.md presents it as an admitted, objectively scored 14/14 atom. This leaves readers unable to tell whether the historical score is admissible evidence; update this status to match the manifest/result, or downgrade those documents if admission was not actually completed.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
| Skill entrypoint: | ||
| [`SKILL.md`](../../../../skills/unsafe-rust/SKILL.md) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This link resolves to the newly committed V1 SKILL.md, whose SHA-256 is 2b063ad7…, while the report and manifest identify the evaluated predecessor by SHA-256 b943f109…. Following the report header therefore supplies a different treatment than the one that produced the reported scores and can make readers believe V1 passed this pilot. Label the linked file as an unevaluated successor, or retain and link the exact evaluated entrypoint.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
2 participants
Introduce a proof-oriented unsafe Rust authoring and audit skill. Treat safety
documentation as an English-language theorem and each SAFETY comment as its
proof, with every material premise grounded in exact versioned Rust Reference
or standard-library text or recorded conspicuously in the TCB.
Require obligation-first review, local invariant composition, adversarial
caller reasoning, explicit dependency trust, complete safe-API and
configuration surfaces, documented postconditions, and proof-grade audit
artifacts. Include the conditional abstraction-design workflow, module-boundary
discipline, API-evolution and SemVer analysis, generated-code coverage, TCB and
report templates, and a source catalog and evaluation plan.
Preserve the paired exploratory smoke test that preceded this V1 snapshot. Ten
fresh source-only agents reviewed synthetic vulnerable/fixed code, a historical
zerocopy defect/fix pair, and current zerocopy. The treatment retained complete
known-defect recall and improved authority, configuration, surface, TCB, and
report closure, while the current-code challenge exposed missed version
applicability, literal contract clauses, and indirect derivations.
The exact predecessor skill archive and several raw pilot artifacts were not
retained. Record its digest and results without claiming a byte-exact
predecessor-to-V1 diff. The pilot used procedural rather than hardened
isolation, one replicate per cell, and cannot establish release readiness.
Latest Update: v2 — Compare vs v1
📚 Full Patch History
Links show the diff between the row version and the column version.
⬇️ Download this PR
Branch
git fetch origin refs/heads/G6f4nmapfoz5ur4camwh2yhyazexc2lct && git checkout -b pr-G6f4nmapfoz5ur4camwh2yhyazexc2lct FETCH_HEADCheckout
git fetch origin refs/heads/G6f4nmapfoz5ur4camwh2yhyazexc2lct && git checkout FETCH_HEADCherry Pick
git fetch origin refs/heads/G6f4nmapfoz5ur4camwh2yhyazexc2lct && git cherry-pick FETCH_HEADPull
Stacked PRs enabled by GHerrit.