Skip to content
This repository was archived by the owner on Oct 15, 2026. It is now read-only.

docs: verification pack (evidence ladder, tests, readiness) - #114

Merged
github-actions[bot] merged 3 commits into
mainfrom
docs/verification-pack
Oct 15, 2026
Merged

github-actions[bot] merged 3 commits into
mainfrom
docs/verification-pack

Conversation

@shmindmaster

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

Adds docs/verification/, the verification pack per the 2026-10-15 fleet directive:

  • README, FUNCTIONAL, TECHNICAL: a Mermaid diagram and a 17-hop file:line trace of gitpin gate.
  • COVERAGE: the evidence matrix and integrations.
  • TESTS: every executed run, with SHA and counts.
  • DEMOS: the films, with hashes and QA, and the plan for the C deep dive and the vertical short.
  • READINESS: the verdict, plus the machine-readable status block.

Evidence it records:

  • Main 90598a1: Validate run 38736417735 passed every job. Vitest 105/105 on Node 22 and 24; site Playwright 124 passed; package and package-runtime passed on Node 20, 22 and 24. CodeQL passed.
  • Published package smoke: npx -y gitpin@0.6.4 gate on this repository's own history. ci: let Validate be dispatched on the merged main SHA #113 alone gives evidence-verified, exit 0. Two PRs with one manifest give uncovered-change on exactly the 2 unclaimed paths, exit 1.
  • Site: redeployed from 90598a1. The live site still carried the attribution removed in chore: remove company attribution; independent maintainer contact #98.
  • Verdict: Verified End-to-End Ready (functional yes, demo partial, production yes).

.gitpin/change-evidence.json has one claim covering the seven files. A local gitpin gate --base origin/main --head HEAD returned evidence-verified, exit 0.

Docs only; no code change.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

shmindmaster and others added 3 commits October 15, 2026 07:46
…nical, coverage, demos)

Pack per the 2026-10-15 fleet directive. Tests, readiness verdict and status
block follow once the suites have run at this commit.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>


Validate at 90598a1 (vitest 105 x2, site 124, package-runtime x3), the PR
evidence gate, an npx gitpin@0.6.4 smoke on this repo's own history, and the
site redeploy that removed the stale attribution. Coverage rungs updated.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Copilot AI balanced review requested due to automatic review settings October 15, 2026 12:53

Copilot AI left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Copilot was unable to review this pull request because the user who requested the review has reached their quota limit.

@coderabbitai

coderabbitai Bot commented Oct 15, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Important

  • 🔍 Trigger review

This repository does not receive automatic reviews because it has fewer than 10 stars.

⚙️ Run configuration
  • Configuration used: defaults
  • Review profile: CHILL
  • Plan: Advanced
  • Run ID: 1508c63f-2851-4805-bf37-6bea8db0abc5
  • Autofix · Keep fixing CodeRabbit findings and required CI, and resolving merge conflicts

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.

@github-actions
github-actions Bot enabled auto-merge (squash) October 15, 2026 12:53
@github-actions
github-actions Bot merged commit 2e79f3d into main Oct 15, 2026
13 checks passed

@chatgpt-codex-connector chatgpt-codex-connector Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 8b21aed508

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".

## Auth and secrets

- Gate and stdio MCP: no auth; they run as the local user against local repos.
- HTTP MCP: `Authorization: Bearer` compared with `timingSafeEqual` against `GITPIN_MCP_TOKEN` (legacy alias `REPOCONTEXT_MCP_TOKEN`); the server refuses to start without it (`src/http.ts:15`). `GITPIN_ALLOWED_HOSTS` is a Host-header allowlist; `/healthz` skips it. Request size capped at 1 MiB, `content-length` required, no chunked bodies. Default bind is `0.0.0.0` on this commit; PR #102 changes that and is pending, not evaluated here.

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

P2 Badge Correct the HTTP behavior for the verified commit

For readers treating this pack as the verification of 90598a1, this describes the pre-fix HTTP behavior: that SHA already contains src/http.ts:138, which defaults to 127.0.0.1, rejects non-loopback binds without an allowlist, and validates browser origins. COVERAGE.md:3 even acknowledges that the loopback change landed between e4c550e and 90598a1, so saying the default is 0.0.0.0 and the fix is still pending makes the security and deployment assessment stale relative to the tested SHA.

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.

verdict: Verified End-to-End Ready
functional_ready: yes
demo_ready: partial
production_ready: yes

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

P2 Badge Narrow the production-ready verdict to exercised paths

When this machine-readable block is consumed as the verdict for the scope declared below, production_ready: yes also covers the evidence prove/verify path, but COVERAGE.md:17-20 rates those MCP capabilities only as Tested and TESTS.md:52-55 explicitly says no real MCP client session was executed. The production smoke only exercised gitpin gate, so either narrow the verdict's scope to that gate or run a production prove/verify smoke before marking the broader scope production-ready.

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.

@@ -0,0 +1,54 @@
# GitPin Verification Pack

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

P2 Badge Link the verification pack from the documentation map

Add this new durable documentation section to docs/README.md: a repo-wide search at this commit finds no reference to docs/verification/ outside the evidence manifest, so users entering through the authoritative documentation map cannot discover the pack. The repository specifically defines docs/ as being indexed by docs/README.md.

AGENTS.md reference: AGENTS.md:L16-L19

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.

Comment on lines +38 to +39
| `npx -y gitpin@0.6.4 gate --base 56fcab9 --head df94cd3` on this repository (#113 alone, with its manifest) | `evidence-verified`, exit **0** |
| `npx -y gitpin@0.6.4 gate --base 56fcab9 --head 90598a1` (two PRs; only #111's manifest at head) | `failed`, `uncovered-change` on `.github/workflows/ci.yml` and `scripts/verify-ci-runner-routing.mjs`, exit **1**. These are exactly the two files #111 does not claim. |

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

P2 Badge Record executable full-SHA smoke commands

Replace the abbreviated revisions in these production-smoke commands with the actual 40-character SHAs. resolveCommit rejects anything that does not match 40 hexadecimal characters before invoking Git, so the displayed --base 56fcab9 --head df94cd3 command cannot produce the reported successful gate result; the analogous local command at line 49 using origin/main and HEAD is likewise impossible as written. This makes the primary production evidence unreproducible and conflicts with the repository's commit-pinned, full-SHA contract.

AGENTS.md reference: AGENTS.md:L52-L53

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.


| Workflow | Trigger | What it does |
| --- | --- | --- |
| `ci.yml` | pull_request, push | `pnpm validate` (node matrix), package job (`verify:package`, `pnpm audit --audit-level high`, `npm pack`), website Playwright job |

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

P2 Badge Include the manual trigger in the CI workflow inventory

Document workflow_dispatch in this trigger column. The verified ci.yml contains that trigger specifically so the exact merged SHA can be tested after token-driven auto-merges, and the readiness report later identifies adding it as a verification fix; listing only pull_request, push therefore omits the mechanism used to establish the reported main-SHA test evidence.

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.

functional_ready: yes
demo_ready: partial
production_ready: yes
deployed_sha: "npm gitpin 0.6.4 (release v0.6.4); MCP Registry 0.6.4; Pages at 90598a1"

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

P2 Badge Use an actual full SHA in deployed_sha

Make this machine-readable provenance field contain exact commit identifiers rather than a prose mixture of versions and an abbreviated commit. npm and the MCP Registry resolve to release commit 514799cb0eae55e965e51d510d5e7a0a7604c9cc, while Pages is reported from a different commit, so the current singular value cannot be parsed or compared to any deployed revision and only identifies Pages as 90598a1. Split the channels into separate full-SHA fields or otherwise preserve their exact commit mapping.

AGENTS.md reference: AGENTS.md:L5-L10

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.

- **Hook (0:00–0:15).** A PR tries to weaken its own gate by editing `.gitpin/gate.yml` in head. The gate reads policy from base, reports `policy-change-blocked`, and exits 1.
- **Axes (0:15–0:45).** Base versus head trust. Coverage from the merge-base diff, not from the PR description. A hash-pinned line versus a semantic check.
- **Behaviour, then diagram (0:45–3:15).** Reuse the GP1 fail and pass takes. Walk the 17-hop trace in [TECHNICAL.md](TECHNICAL.md) on the code stage: `gate.ts` policy block (55–67), line-slice hash (108–115), coverage (169–173). Show the Mermaid diagram after the behaviour.
- **MCP (3:15–4:15).** A real MCP client over stdio calling `pin.search` → `pin.prove` → `pin.verify`, ending with the evidence pack's full SHA and hash.

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

P2 Badge Replace the nonexistent pin.search tool in the demo plan

Use either pin.search_docs or pin.search_code in the planned MCP recording. The server's 12-tool contract has no pin.search method, as the inventory in FUNCTIONAL.md:33 also confirms, so the scripted pin.search → pin.prove → pin.verify session here—and the same sequence at line 40—cannot be executed by a real MCP client.

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.


## Data

- No database, queue, cache or embeddings. Git is the only data store, read through `git show`, `git diff`, `git rev-parse`, `git merge-base`, `git grep` (`execFileSync`, no shell).

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

P2 Badge Disclose the process-local registry cache

Qualify this as having no persistent content cache, or remove the registry memoization. At the verified SHA, src/registry.ts:19 holds a module-level cached registry and loadRegistry returns it without rereading repositories.yaml, so a long-lived stdio or HTTP process does not observe registry edits until the cache is explicitly cleared or the process restarts. The unqualified statement that no cache exists hides this operational behavior and conflicts with the repository's no-cache rule.

AGENTS.md reference: AGENTS.md:L52-L57

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.

production_ready: yes
deployed_sha: "npm gitpin 0.6.4 (release v0.6.4); MCP Registry 0.6.4; Pages at 90598a1"
tests: "vitest: 105/105 (18 files) x node22/node24 @ 90598a1 run 38736417735; site Playwright: 124/124 @ 90598a1; package + package-runtime node20/22/24: pass @ 90598a1; CodeQL: pass @ 90598a1; PR evidence gate: pass on #111, #113; prod smoke: npx gitpin@0.6.4 gate exit 0 (covered) and exit 1 (uncovered-change) on this repo 2026-10-15"
films: ["D:\\OneDrive - Maya Modest LLC\\Videos\\Portfolio\\GitPin\\01 - The Gate That Wants Evidence.mp4", "D:\\OneDrive - Maya Modest LLC\\Videos\\Portfolio\\GitPin\\02 - The Gate in 30 Seconds.mp4", "D:\\OneDrive - Maya Modest LLC\\Videos\\Evergreen\\Proof Clips\\02 - GitPin Evidence Gate.mp4"]

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

P2 Badge Redact the company path from the public status block

Replace these absolute OneDrive paths with neutral media-relative identifiers such as the Videos\... values already used in DEMOS.md. This public status block reintroduces Maya Modest LLC three times immediately after commit #98 removed company attribution and docs/launch.md:44 established that unrelated companies should not be mentioned, while also exposing an owner-specific workstation organization path that external reviewers cannot use.

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.

@chatgpt-codex-connector

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codex Review Summary

This comment shows the latest Codex review activity on this pull request.

Review Status Commit Review trigger
📝 Code Review ✅ Completed 2026-10-15T12:59:09.487189Z 8b21aed PR opened
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" or "@codex security review".

Codex reacts with 👀 while any review is running, comments if it has suggestions, and reacts with 👍 once all reviews finish with no findings.

Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants