interface-canon/infospace/examples/repo-manager-statehub.md

Consumer proof: Repo Manager → Statehub

Consumer: repo-manager, function sync_repository_projection in src/repo_manager/projection_sync.py. Provider: state-hub, router api/routers/work_record_projection.py. Exact revisions and hashes are retained in the consumer source manifest and provider source manifest.

This is a source-based application of InterfaceCanon to an existing integration. It proves that the vocabulary can describe the consumer; it does not assert that Repo Manager has adopted this canon or published a reciprocal card.

Concept	Concrete interpretation	Source evidence
System nodes	Repo Manager client and primary Statehub API	Consumer client construction and provider primary-role check.
Ports / participations	Client requires repository-projection contract; Statehub offers it	Client POST and matching provider router. These are semantic ports, not TCP port numbers.
Interface Contract	Reconcile a repository's work-record projection from an exact pushed Forge commit	Provider compares derived commit with expected_commit before reset.
Operation	ReconcileRepositoryProjection	POST /repos/{slug}/work-record-projection/reconcile. HTTP method/path realizes the semantic operation.
Binding	JSON over the configured HTTP API base with idempotency and source-agent headers	httpx.Client, json=, Idempotency-Key, X-StateHub-Source-Agent. No HTTP version or TLS property is inferred.
Endpoint	Configured API locator plus reconciliation route; local example http://127.0.0.1:8000/repos/interface-canon/work-record-projection/reconcile	api_base and the interpolated route. Loopback is host-relative; deployment routing is unknown from this code.
Channel	No separate exchange/mediation locus established by this direct API exchange	No broker/topic declared in this consumer. A pending JSON file is not evidence of a messaging Channel.
Information Resource	Statehub's derived work-record projection for the repository selected by slug	reset_repository_projection and the snapshot route. The projected state persists independently of one interaction.
Resource Selector	Repository slug, scoped within the Statehub repository registry	Router slug parameter. Its presence in an HTTP path does not make the resource identical to its endpoint.
Request Information Shape	Expected commit and retirement acknowledgement	RepositoryProjectionReconcile: 40-hex SHA, normalized to lowercase, acknowledgement defaults false.
Response Information Shape	Reconciliation receipt with schema, instance identity, expected/derived commits, outcome	Provider's returned dictionary. Response lacks a dedicated Pydantic response model; do not invent one.
Representation	JSON for the request/receipt participation	json= and response.json(). JSON is neither the projection resource nor its semantic shape.
Artifacts	Client source, router source, and Pydantic request schema source	Describing/implementing artifacts pinned independently of their modeled contract and shapes.
Interaction Flow	Verify primary health, then request reconciliation	GET /state/health precedes the POST. Git push is a prerequisite with its own integration, not part of the HTTP binding.
Interaction outcome	Applied/noop, queued locally, rejected, or unavailable	Consumer branches on role/network errors and receipt outcome. Queued is pending intent, not a successful provider interaction.

Verification and limits

The existing consumer test tests/test_fast_work_records.py::test_sync_uses_two_requests_and_exact_pushed_commit executes the actual client with MockTransport and a temporary Git remote. It checks the health→reconcile path sequence, use of the pushed commit, and applied result. The test ran successfully during this review. The provider route and request shape were also read at the pinned revisions; mock success alone would not establish provider behavior.

Boundary acceptance cases:

• The URL and repository projection refer to different concepts: Binding locator versus persistent projected resource.
• A pending file is an artifact of a deferred request; it supplies no broker, topic, or delivery-semantics evidence from which to infer a Channel.
• JSON describes encoding; the request constraint requires a 40-hex commit.
• A mocked applied result validates the client flow; production application is evidenced separately by the actual Statehub sync receipt at session close.
• Missing TLS/HTTP-version/gateway facts remain unknown. They do not require new Core entities or a fabricated exact communication stack.

Unresolved implementation detail: the response shape is implied by provider code rather than a dedicated response schema. That limits machine contract checking, not the ability to model the exchange. No provider change is required by this review. Consumer adoption and reciprocal acceptance are tracked in INTERFACE-WP-0004.