coulomb/ops-mason
4
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions

repo.work.create_intake MASON-IN-0002

Browse source 
correlation_id: 8a9408fd-c863-4b65-ad0a-d514f7d10c13
reason: Request own-voice layer declaration under §11
source: repo-manager

Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: opus
Assistant-Process: 2564823@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: 2a7ed827-4928-4b9f-8613-9135c9cadfe9
This commit is contained in:
repo-manager 2026-08-28 23:03:29 +02:00
parent 718df758dc
commit 77a2eadd28
1 changed files with 35 additions and 0 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

35
intakes/intakes.md
View file

@ -28,3 +28,38 @@ created: '2026-08-22T09:33:08.629717Z'
updated: '2026-08-22T21:19:02Z'
state_hub_intake_id: "01a028d1-c4af-7a06-adb5-c90399721872"
```
## MASON-IN-0002 — Declaration requested: state this repository's layer in INTENT.md (security layer model §11)
```yaml
id: MASON-IN-0002
kind: intake
title: 'Declaration requested: state this repository''s layer in INTENT.md (security
layer model §11)'
status: open
origin: cross-repo
origin_ref: net-kingdom security-layer-model_v0.4 §11
priority: low
owner: ops-mason
requested_by: gate-house
proposed_layer: Staff
description: 'A conformance sweep on 2026-08-28 found this repository has no layer
declaration of its own. It carries a layering review note gate-house wrote into
the top of its INTENT.md on 2026-08-24, and that note names a layer — but the words
are gate-house''s, sitting above a line admitting the body is unadapted. Section
11 has since been amended to say so explicitly: a layer stated about a repository
by another repository is not a declaration; only the repository''s own file, in
its own voice, conforms. Seven of fifteen estate-authored repositories have declared;
this is one of the eight that have not. REQUESTED: state the layer in INTENT.md
in your own voice, or contest it. PROPOSED LAYER: Staff. Builds and tears down access
routes, credentials, and perimeters. Two things to state in your words: the Staff
binding rule (you act through Engine APIs, never directly against Tooling — a grep
of your own source is the check, as ops-warden did and found one), and the demarcation
you are half of: ops-mason and ops-warden own access lanes, access-engine owns access
rules. Contesting is a real option and costs nothing — the three repositories that
reviewed this model each returned a correction, two of which changed the standard.
If the proposed layer is wrong for what this repository actually does, that is more
useful to us than a label added to close a checkbox. Standard: net-kingdom/canon/standards/security-layer-model_v0.4.md.'
created: '2026-08-28T21:03:29.920563Z'
updated: '2026-08-28T21:03:29.920563Z'
```