Repository navigation
docs: update engineering workflow and threat model - #193
Conversation
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. |
ef3a54a to
b3c8018
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: ac93f334ae
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 security review |
🛡️ Codex Security ReviewSecurity review completed. No security issues were found in this pull request. Reviewed commit: Only the user who started this review can view the report in Codex. ℹ️ About Codex security reviews in GitHubThis is an experimental Codex feature. Security reviews are triggered when:
Once complete, Codex will leave suggestions, or a comment if no findings are found. |
Make engineering changes trace complete invariants across callers, durable writes, cancellation, and recovery before review. Review findings require a related-path audit and concrete regression evidence. Reconcile ready-PR automatic review, logical local commits, review timing, minimal messages, and local-only branch cleanup with current user decisions. Documentation-only PRs may skip code workflows while retaining applicable document checks and required reviews.
Replace docs/THREAT_MODEL.md with the supplied four-section draft, updated to reviewed runtime e57e792. Describe the independent authority reader and cancellation-resource cleanup while retaining the draft's trust boundaries, residual risks, severity calibration, and unfinished issue #178 scope. Require future threat-model updates alongside relevant code changes, with an accurate baseline and the same format. Any PR changing the threat model requires security review after clean general review, following the existing final-head review rules.
Add the user's preferences for plain-language code names, normally 30 characters or fewer, and proactive security-request guidance: state the authorized defensive outcome, provide only relevant context and necessary technical details, check permissibility, and never disguise requests or bypass safeguards.
Validation: checked the revised containment/persistence statements against the reviewed runtime and its regression evidence; verified the supplied draft's heading structure is unchanged; git diff --check passes. The PR changes only AGENTS.md and docs/THREAT_MODEL.md relative to current main.