Commit graph

4 commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
6cd969dda9 WARDEN-WP-0033-T04: route the coding-agent issuance identity to key-cape
All checks were successful
CI Smoke / host-smoke (push) Successful in 1s
CI Smoke / container-smoke (push) Successful in 2s
Routed, not absorbed. It is an identity and issuance question about a principal
authenticating to OpenBao, which is key-cape's. secrets-engine drew the same
boundary at us an hour ago over key-cape-oidc-login and we agreed with them.

Named zone-engine as interested and user-engine as explicitly not involved, so
neither is concluded by inference. Asked for accept or refuse; a refusal with a
pointer is an equally good answer.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-21 08:39:10 +02:00
6e1d5201aa WARDEN-WP-0033-T03: emit the high-risk data-path artifact
railiance-platform asked for a generated list to consume instead of hand-
maintaining agent-high-risk-boundary. Hand-maintaining it is what let the two
lists drift for four lanes in RISK-F-0009.

19 high-risk lanes, 14 concrete data paths, 5 without a single KV address listed
separately so absence does not read as omission. Carries catalog_revision and a
dirty flag. fields is null where unestablished, never a one-element guess.

The header states plainly that this is an input and not a policy: railiance-
platform owns the deny set and may deny more, less, or dispute a grade. ADR-0002
survives the handoff.

Two CI tests guard staleness, because a consumer applies this to a live control.
Note the immediate consequence of T02: 2 uncovered against a policy they closed
to 0 yesterday.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-21 08:38:13 +02:00
c357ce5908 WARDEN-WP-0033 T01/T02: two under-graded lanes, and ADR-0008
secrets-engine reviewed our catalog metadata while drafting their five entries
and graded issue-core-ingestion-api-key and reuse-surface-hub-write-token high.
We had both as standard, and had deliberately regraded them DOWN on 2026-08-19.

They are right. Both paths carry a second credential our grade never looked at --
GITEA_BACKEND_TOKEN (CCR-2026-0002, a deliberate field-set decision) and a
dual-consumer webhook HMAC (CCR-2026-0005). Neither is recovered by rotating the
credential the lane is named after.

The defect is structural: we graded the lane by its headline field, but a read
returns every field at the path. Worse, the evidence was already in the CCRs we
cite as authoritative -- not missing, unread -- and a test asserted the wrong
answer, so a correct first-pass grade got overruled by it.

ADR-0008 records the rule: a grade covers every field its path discloses.
ADR-0007 is unchanged and still governs; this says what the grade is of.

Six of the remaining standard lanes have no KV path. Two have paths and no field
evidence; per ADR-0008 they are stated as unknown rather than assumed, and left
for operator-sanctioned grading.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-21 08:36:42 +02:00
9b7e2e9bd2 Open WARDEN-WP-0033 — native lane handoff
All checks were successful
CI Smoke / host-smoke (push) Successful in 0s
CI Smoke / container-smoke (push) Successful in 1s
secrets-engine accepted five interim lanes and drafted the entries itself rather
than wait for our contribution. Reviewing them turned up a defect in our own
grading model, which is now T02 and the most consequential item in the plan.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-21 08:30:19 +02:00