ops-warden routes API-key needs to railiance-platform, whose convention is
platform/workloads/<domain>/<workload>/<bundle>. This repository invented
secret/fluid-telegram/<campaign>/telegram instead, which is not its call to
make -- a service that picks its own paths in someone else's store is how a
policy ends up written around a mistake.
Mount and prefix are now BAO_MOUNT and FLUID_BAO_PREFIX, with the old scheme
kept as a development fallback. The runbook points at `warden access` for the
current shape and at OIDC login rather than a plain token, and names the
check that tells whether a login actually took.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_0172sgCZEEDJcnQmr4SGDvKa
Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: opus
Assistant-Process: 1361245@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: b3b428ef-f3e6-4688-b091-01f71461d66a
The avatar is now applied rather than deferred: BotFather's /setuserpic is a
conversation in which you send a photo, so the file is uploaded and sent as
a message. It is content addressed -- replacing the file is what triggers an
update, and the digest is recorded only after BotFather confirms, so a failed
upload retries rather than being remembered as done. The image is validated
before the conversation starts, because an image rejected halfway leaves the
bot registered without a picture.
Adds `provision preflight`: spec, avatar, OpenBao reachability, credentials,
session presence, salt and the resulting plan, checked in one run that writes
nothing and never contacts Telegram. Every failure it reports is one that
would otherwise surface after a phone number had been spent.
Two bugs it found immediately. The avatar path is documented as repo-relative
but resolved against the spec's own directory, so the real campaign spec
failed to find its own asset. And the OpenBao error named both variables when
only one was missing, sending the reader to check the one already set.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_0172sgCZEEDJcnQmr4SGDvKa
Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: opus
Assistant-Process: 1361245@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: b3b428ef-f3e6-4688-b091-01f71461d66a
Two things that would have gone wrong on the first live run.
The plan promised "create bot.avatar" and apply had no avatar code at all:
/setuserpic needs a photo upload that is not implemented. A plan that
promises an action apply silently skips is worse than one that admits the
gap, because it makes every other line less trustworthy. The avatar is now
deferred, with instructions for setting it by hand.
The runbook wrote secrets to "<interface-path>/telegram/...", which is not
what the code computes. An operator following it would have put api_id and
api_hash somewhere the tool never looks, and found out at the first
connection attempt. Both documents now carry the real paths --
<mount>/fluid-telegram/<campaign>/telegram/<key> -- with a copy-pasteable
bao kv put for the one secret written by hand, and a verify step before
the session is minted.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_0172sgCZEEDJcnQmr4SGDvKa
Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: opus
Assistant-Process: 1361245@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: b3b428ef-f3e6-4688-b091-01f71461d66a
Loosen the all-or-nothing stance on provisioning: where a platform has no
API to seed access, a guided runbook is the right answer. docs/seeding-runbook.md
covers the three Telegram steps that cannot be automated, and each carries a
"why not automated" line so the judgement can be revisited rather than
inherited. Telegram's steps resist automation incidentally -- nobody built
the endpoints -- unlike a control such as KYC, which resists by design and
where a weak component would be a defect rather than an opening.
Fix the schema's $id, which was a relative path and broke $ref resolution in
ordinary validators, and add the visibility/username constraint the field
descriptions already claimed. Both specs now validate, and the rejections are
tested.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_0172sgCZEEDJcnQmr4SGDvKa
Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: opus
Assistant-Process: 1361245@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: b3b428ef-f3e6-4688-b091-01f71461d66a
Align AGENTS.md with the FT-WP- prefix the hub already registered, and
rewrite INTENT.md and SCOPE.md, which were still the generated stubs and
carried none of the composed-post framing the interface is built around.
Fix two artifact inconsistencies: R-1's retry comment still described
POST /v1/hall-entries idempotent on entry_id, from before the reframe to
composed posts; and the seed pressure record listed only one of the two
hypotheses that cite it. Rename it to match its id.
Replace the manual T01-T03 route with FT-WP-0002. The Bot API cannot
create a bot or a channel, so provisioning is an MTProto client acting as
a designated operator account (Canon INT-03), driven from a declared
presence spec owned by the campaign. One bounded human bootstrap remains
and docs/provisioning.md says why it cannot be removed.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_0172sgCZEEDJcnQmr4SGDvKa
Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: opus
Assistant-Process: 1361245@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: b3b428ef-f3e6-4688-b091-01f71461d66a
The channel publishes a post written from a hall entry -- condensed,
personal, reach-optimized -- not the entry itself. That changes what
this interface is for and where its boundary sits.
Composition is deliberately outside the interface. Composing is a
probabilistic editorial task, and Blueprint 48.1 forbids an LLM in the
mandatory request path, so an interface that composed on demand would be
non-deterministic exactly where determinism is the whole claim. It is
also editorial: a post speaks about a named person's work in
HelixForge's voice, and a review step inside the request path is a
review step nobody performs.
The contract now takes a composed post with a required reviewer, a cited
source entry and a consent basis. A post carrying none of those is
refused. Absence of objection is not consent, and in an audit trail an
unfaithful post looks exactly like a faithful one -- the defence is that
a human read it, the source is named, and both are recorded.
The first experiment is rebuilt accordingly. The old competition asked
how to fit a whole entry into Telegram; that question no longer exists.
The new one asks whether the portrait earns the 3072 characters of
caption limit it costs, which is a delivery question this interface
actually owns. Competition over editorial voice belongs to the campaign
and runs on the per-variant engagement this interface reports.
Adds T05b (composition and review), T05c (consent basis for the 94
existing participants, blocking public publication) and T11 (extracting
the campaign into pr-hall-of-helix).
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_014KmVxhJ35tCo7rE7UnLwWu
Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: opus
Assistant-Process: 1116572@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: 8ba9bb93-a72a-4883-b189-2499cce5c400
Adds the governing intent, the R-1 contract and descriptor, the adapter's
connector contract, the observation and redaction configuration, a
runbook, and the seed evidence for the first experiment: a measured
pressure record and two competing hypotheses about how a long hall entry
should reach a reader.
The interface is declared at FLUID-2 deliberately. It publishes under
HelixForge's name to an audience that did not consent to being
experimented on carelessly, and the cost of a bad post is reputational
rather than recoverable.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_014KmVxhJ35tCo7rE7UnLwWu
Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: opus
Assistant-Process: 1116572@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: 8ba9bb93-a72a-4883-b189-2499cce5c400
