docs(v0.6): admit fleet operations and Kafka security planning - #147
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. |
|
@codex review Please review exact planning head |
![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: d4d5ce6253
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".
Addresses exact-head architecture/security review findings by governing unresolved-effect disposition, closing MM2 activation/internal-write authorization gaps, and bounding cumulative long-running observation. Signed-off-by: Ammar Heidari <ammar@arad-itc.org>
b5676af to
01b2211
Compare
|
@codex review Please re-review exact head |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 01b2211b02
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".
Signed-off-by: Ammar Heidari <ammar@arad-itc.org>
Signed-off-by: Ammar Heidari <ammar@arad-itc.org>
Signed-off-by: Ammar Heidari <ammar@arad-itc.org>
|
@codex review Please review current exact head |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: ff67a29d3a
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".
Signed-off-by: Ammar Heidari <ammar@arad-itc.org>
Signed-off-by: Ammar Heidari <ammar@arad-itc.org>
|
@codex review Fresh exact-head review requested for |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 20d161ca38
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".
Address current planning review by making Connect activation permissions lifecycle-specific and by materializing the exact read permissions required for reassignment/RF/throttle/maintenance previews. Signed-off-by: Ammar Heidari <ammar@arad-itc.org>
|
@codex review Please review current exact head |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 9b5359865b
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".
Signed-off-by: Ammar Heidari <ammar@arad-itc.org>
Signed-off-by: Ammar Heidari <ammar@arad-itc.org>
Signed-off-by: Ammar Heidari <ammar@arad-itc.org>
|
@codex review |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: d97e0dcdae
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".
Signed-off-by: Ammar Heidari <ammar@arad-itc.org>
|
Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. Keep it up! Reviewed commit: 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". |
Reconcile PR #147 with the protected-main branding and deterministic test-fix merges without changing the submitted v0.6 planning content. Signed-off-by: Ammar Heidari <ammar@arad-itc.org>
|
@codex review Fresh exact-head review requested after reconciling the docs-only v0.6 planning branch with protected main |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: a167f36f5e
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".
Define exact topic/broker throttle mutation targets and a read-only skew-analysis authorization conjunction without weakening ordinary config or mutation boundaries. Signed-off-by: Ammar Heidari <ammar@arad-itc.org>
Require read-only skew authorization evidence and exact typed throttle write/read denial coverage in the W45 contract. Signed-off-by: Ammar Heidari <ammar@arad-itc.org>
Add denial evidence for skew visibility and exact throttle write/read conjunctions, while preserving ordinary config-route throttle rejection. Signed-off-by: Ammar Heidari <ammar@arad-itc.org>
|
@codex review Please perform a fresh exact-head review of |
|
@codex review Fresh exact-head review requested for |
|
Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. Bravo. Reviewed commit: 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". |
2 participants
Authority and purpose
Ammar explicitly accepted the detailed Gate 6 scope/safety boundaries in #145 on 2026-09-23 and authorized completing the planning package, with implementation only after governed planning admission. Scope gate #145 is completed; tracker #146 owns planning and subsequent delivery.
This is a docs-only planning PR, not v0.6 implementation or release promotion.
e5de0ec142d5dd06ef52f59718c60c3109d1070a(v0.5.1).d4d5ce625360b88251d5667a689729a5767e50d2.Package
Start at
docs/implementation/v0.6-planning-package.md.The package contains RFC-0006, product specification, ADR-0007, shared runtime/long-running progress architecture, exact authorization/risk matrix, security/threat-model delta, reassignment/decommission contracts, transfer/replication security, provider capability evidence matrix, API/OpenAPI/UI principles, test strategy, W41-W50 implementation plan and Gate 6 approval record.
Architecture and security decisions for review
Compatibility and migration impact
Planning proposes additive versioned progress records in the existing SQLite/PostgreSQL provider strategy, safe restore/reconciliation behavior and refusal of incompatible mixed-version mutation execution. No migration is applied by this PR. W41 must prove pinned-client API availability and shared persistence/authorization safety before dependent adapters.
Evidence and admission
The exact diff was compared against the current protected-main base: documentation only, 1 commit ahead, 0 behind. The commit includes the required DCO trailer. CI/review are pending at PR creation. No local test execution is claimed; runtime is unchanged and new v0.6 suites are requirements for later workstreams.
Merge only after current base/head reconciliation, successful applicable exact-head CI, substantive architecture/security review, fresh CODEOWNER approval from
akhiabanchian, zero unresolved required threads and active ruleset compliance. Use expected-head guarded merge; after post-merge verification update #146 before activating W41.Release/tag/OCI promotion/publication and v0.7+ remain separately owner-approval-bound. Published v0.5/v0.5.1 identities and
.github/release/release.jsonremain untouched.Signed-off-by: Ammar Heidari ammar@arad-itc.org