Draft HACP v0.3 accountable continuation source packet - #42
Conversation
![sourcery-ai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/48477?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
Reviewer's GuideThis documentation-only PR introduces a public-safe HACP v0.3 candidate source packet and illustrative JSON sketches for accountable continuation, centered on immutable human decisions and separately recorded single-consumer admission receipts, while updating repository status, authority wording, publication gates, and schema-version inventory. It deliberately leaves runtime behavior and conformance claims out of scope and retains an explicit external proof gate before v0.3 semantics are promoted. Sequence diagram for accountable continuation admissionsequenceDiagram
participant Human
participant Decision as HumanDecision
participant Receipt as ConsumptionReceipt
participant Successor
participant Report as AgentReport
participant Stop as StopResponse
Human->>Decision: approve bounded scope
Decision-->>Receipt: reference unchanged decision and digest
Receipt->>Receipt: admit one successor claim
alt claim accepted
Receipt-->>Successor: successor invocation id
Successor-->>Report: return evidence tied to receipt
else claim or boundary cannot be proven
Receipt-->>Stop: return canonical stop reason
end
Flow diagram for fail-closed continuation boundariesflowchart LR
A[Human decision] --> B[Consumption receipt]
B --> C{Continuation boundary proven?}
C -->|Yes| D[One successor admitted]
D --> E[Agent or adapter report]
C -->|No| F[Canonical stop response]
B -.-> G[Decision remains immutable]
E -.-> H[Evidence is not execution completion]
File-Level Changes
Possibly linked issues
Tips and commandsInteracting with Sourcery
Customizing Your ExperienceAccess your dashboard to:
Getting Help
|
|
@codex review |
Codex Review SummaryThis comment shows the latest Codex review activity on this pull request.
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHubYour team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
Codex reacts with 👀 while any review is running, comments if it has suggestions, and reacts with 👍 once all reviews finish with no findings. |
PR Summary by QodoDraft HACP v0.3 accountable continuation packet
AI Description
Diagram
High-Level Assessment
Files changed (12)
|
Code Review by Qodo
1.
|
![qodo-code-review[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/484649?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
![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: 96220f68e5
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".
|
PR review loop disposition:
This note records why the loop is not waiting indefinitely on this finding state. |
|
@codex review |
|
Codex Review: Something went wrong. Try again later by commenting “@codex review”. ℹ️ About Codex in GitHubYour team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
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". |
|
@codex review |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 5554061939
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".
| Before this consumption-contract source packet is merged, maintainers must require | ||
| independent readback of pinned code, tests, and receipts showing: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In the merge context, this change makes independent, owner-accepted evidence a mandatory prerequisite, but the commit description states that the full accepted proof bundle was not found, and the diff contains only documentation and candidate JSON rather than the pinned code, tests, and receipts required here. Merging this commit now would therefore violate the gate it introduces; keep it blocked until the listed evidence is available and accepted.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Confirmed: this remains an unresolved merge blocker at ae6254a. The PR is being held in draft. No accepted pinned code/test/receipt proof bundle is claimed, and this thread will remain open. An earlier status note described proof as a later semantic-promotion gate; that description was incorrect and is superseded by the explicit proof-BEFORE-MERGE requirement.
The independent fresh Kiro review at 5554061 used provider-verified claude-opus-5 and returned substantive findings. It was standalone review evidence, not an ACK quorum receipt, and has not reviewed the new head. The narrow ordering correction does not resolve admitting-party authority, uniqueness policy, expiry/revocation semantics, or the other outstanding sketch findings. Those remain owner/architecture gates; no policy was invented here.
DO NOT MERGE. A clean mechanical ACK result cannot satisfy these substantive review and external-proof gates.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Status correction at 5b4f843: PR #42 is ready-for-review, not draft. The previous draft conversion was unnecessary and is not the proof gate. This thread remains unresolved and DO NOT MERGE remains the recommendation until owner-accepted pinned code/test/receipt evidence exists. No such proof is claimed.
Two bounded evidence findings were patched and validated. Current revocation/expiry freshness at successor start and the immutable revocation-record contract remain unresolved architecture decisions; the worker is not authorized to choose those policies. Kiro findings remain substantive review evidence from 5554061, not a clean review of this head and not ACK quorum evidence. Ready-for-review does not authorize merge.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Current handoff at 728dceb: Joe authorized the bounded fresh Opus review and P1/P2 repairs; those docs/example repairs are pushed (1392eb5 plus late version-specific README P2 in 728dceb). The fresh independent review covered 5191959, actual claude-opus-5 confirmed from provider evidence, 8m22s / 16.80 credits. It is advisory-only, not ACK quorum evidence and not a review of the repaired head. No second fresh review was run.
Remaining substantive gates are not waived by resolved threads: approve the profile admission issuer/trust and single-consumer uniqueness tuple; define authoritative decision/receipt status binding, freshness and start ordering; provide owner-accepted pinned code/test/receipt proof including actual concurrent admission and failure cases. The docs now fail closed when these inputs are absent and do not claim placeholder examples prove them. CN-02 (uniqueness) and CN-11 (status policy) remain partial/open at the policy/proof level. Other scoped P1/P2 record/prose defects were repaired; P3/info deferred. Validation passed: 8 CLI examples; schema corpus 15 valid/9 invalid; seven-sketch consistency and Markdown links; git diff --check. DO NOT MERGE until the external proof gate is satisfied. No merge, runtime, lane, or HACP.io changes.
|
@codex review |
|
Code review by qodo was updated up to the latest commit ae6254a |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: ae6254a008
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".
| "expiresAt": "2026-09-03T19:00:00Z", | ||
| "revokedAt": null |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
When an accepted receipt is revoked after issuance but before successor readback or start, this immutable record remains permanently fixed at revokedAt: null, and the proposed artifact set defines no separate, digest-bound revocation record. A restarted successor can therefore read the still-accepted receipt and proceed despite the draft's fail-closed rule for revoked receipts; model revocation as a separate immutable ledger record/reference and require current revocation readback.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This finding remains unresolved at 5b4f843. The existing immutable receipt snapshot cannot establish current revocation/expiry state at successor start. A complete fix needs an owner-approved authoritative status/revocation evidence contract, its digest binding, and ordering/freshness rule across acceptance, readback, and start. The current narrow task explicitly prohibits silently choosing new revocation policy.
The new start-evidence sketch proves neither current authority nor revocation freshness; its prose states that limitation. No acceptance/waiver or external proof is claimed. Keeping this thread open pending that owner decision; no runtime, lane, or merge change.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Commit 1392eb5 addressed this comment by removing the mutable-looking revokedAt field and adding separate decision/receipt validity evidence references. The draft now requires authenticated current-status readback, digest/integrity binding, freshness, and ordering before successor start, while explicitly leaving the owner-approved policy unresolved.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Partial repair in 1392eb5: removed immutable revokedAt:null and decisionRevision; separated receiptExpiresAt, decisionValidityRef, and receiptValidityRef. Prose requires independently authenticated status evidence bound to the exact records and current at the start gate. Snapshot/URI labels explicitly cannot prove current validity. Keeping this thread unresolved: the actual approved issuer, status integrity contract, freshness and start ordering policy are not selected or externally proven. This is a precise remaining profile choice, not a claim that the example is executable. Validated CLI examples, base corpus, seven-sketch consistency, and diff whitespace. DO NOT MERGE pending the owner-approved policy and pinned external proof.
|
@codex review |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 5b4f8434ce
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".
|
@codex review |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: f272ca0c21
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".
|
@codex review |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 51919592fb
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".
1 participant
Summary
Scope and boundaries
Docs/protocol only. This does not add runtime orchestration, hosted execution, hidden model/tool dispatch, GitHub mutation authority, billing/customer runtime, worker launch authority, or HACP.io product claims. WITS remains a private/reference implementation and is not required to use HACP.
Validation
External proof gate
The read-only who-decides spike commit af8dbd7 records consumption-receipt design intent, but I did not find the full accepted proof bundle for concurrent claim admission, restart readback, claim-before-decision failure, ambiguous execution reporting, and expiry/revocation ordering.
Merge recommendation before ACK: do not merge until the owner accepts that external proof gate, even if docs validation and mechanical ACK gates are otherwise clean.
Refs #39
Summary by Sourcery
Establish the HACP v0.3 accountable-continuation candidate as public source material with supporting artifact sketches and explicit proof and publication boundaries.
New Features:
Enhancements:
Documentation:
Chores:
Note
Draft HACP v0.3 accountable continuation source packet
task-packet,human-decision,consumption-receipt,agent-report,review-finding, andstop-responsePUBLICATION-CHECKLIST.mdrequiring owner-accepted external proof for v0.3 candidate semantics before the consumption-contract draft mergesMacroscope summarized ae6254a.