3 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
Omar SobhandClaude Opus 5	a88d51b078	docs: codebase_research evidenced — 5 of 12, and its citations check out ... Run against the real clawmates repo with a task that cannot be faked from filenames: trace every hop of a mission agent's tool call from the guest hook to the recorded event, naming file, function, and guest vs host for each. It produced a 189-line research/GATE-MAP.md describing code committed the SAME DAY — the four-field NODE_EXTRACT including agent_type, the shadow-mode would-deny.jsonl semantics, install_with — and all six of its line citations verify exactly. Nothing hallucinated. That is a stronger result than the judge's verdict, which could only check that the structure was present. Also recorded: agents reach for Bash. 74 Bash calls against 34 Read, 3 Glob, 1 Edit, 1 Agent — a mapping mission that could have used Grep used Bash 33 times. So the allowlist's dedicated-tool entries may never be exercised, and the surface that actually needs governing is Bash, which the floor rules already cover. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <[email protected]> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01WZb5A2kfVfjpdwSochkuHz	2026-09-22 15:09:22 -05:00
Omar SobhandClaude Opus 5	b1a23727da	docs: backend team evidenced — 4 of 12 ... First run of the backend template, 2026-09-22. All five roles provisioned with real agents; the mission delivered cursor pagination (Paged<T>, paginate<T: Clone>, module declared, cargo test 3/0) and was judged met on the FIRST pass, 2 files pushed. One run is not maturity, but it answers the question the review could not: whether anything staffed from this template runs at all. It does. It also gave the task-permission shadow its first confirmed Edit call — Bash 8, Read 2, Write 2, Edit 1, zero would-deny. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <[email protected]> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01WZb5A2kfVfjpdwSochkuHz	2026-09-22 15:03:05 -05:00
Omar SobhandClaude Opus 5	594cd99e54	docs: template maturity — 3 of 12 teams evidenced, 2 of 6 recipes proven ... A review of what our agents can actually be asked to do, graded by evidence rather than by what the TOML declares. Recipes: research_and_code (13 harness scenarios) and research_only (staffing measured and corrected — 1 of 9 applicable skills under the old rust_sdlc default, 4 of 4 under topic_research) are proven. security_hardening, benchmark and refactor are exercised once each. continuous_research is the outlier: the most moving parts of any recipe, ran twice today, and NOTHING in the harness would notice if it broke. Dead keys the recipes lean on, from phase_config::DECLARED_BUT_UNREAD: loop, produces, input_from_phase, and mcp_bundles at phase level. Not hidden — security_hardening.toml annotates its own decoration inline, and the other five should copy that. The risk is a reader taking loop = "until_no_more_int_items" for a loop. Teams: all 12 resolve every declared skill (0 unbound, the skill-binding-repair work holding), but only rust_sdlc, topic_research and continuous_research have a run behind them. The other nine are well-formed scaffolding. Five are blocked on a target stack we do not have a repo for; four could be exercised against repositories we already have, and nobody currently knows whether they run at all. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <[email protected]> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01WZb5A2kfVfjpdwSochkuHz	2026-09-22 10:26:19 -05:00