Compare commits

...

3 commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
61c992923c WARDEN-WP-0027-T02: the owner gate closed five days ago
All checks were successful
CI Smoke / host-smoke (push) Successful in 0s
CI Smoke / container-smoke (push) Successful in 1s
railiance-platform accepted ops-warden revision 0fae0904 on 2026-08-23, in
RPF-WP-0017 (status: finished), together with railiance-infra approval at
186b030 and all five acceptance criteria met. T02 has been sitting `progress`
on a gate that was already open.

Verified rather than trusted: the receipt at bc1966da hashes to
d2ba444ed16989590325697e69d25283dc75a9432c29a72e627e80bf9fd987e4, matching
their record exactly.

One reason it went unnoticed is an identifier mismatch — T02 cites the
remediation interface as RAILIANCE-WP-0026-T01, but it is RPF-WP-0017-T01 in
the owner repo, and the cited id resolves to an unrelated workplan there.

Their acceptance is source acceptance only and authorizes no live drill, so
T02 stays progress: what unblocks is preparing a NEW scenario, which needs a
fresh human GO and is the platform owner s to execute. Surfaced, not taken.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01YWBMovyFoy9RRrfL7zKvPJ

Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: opus
Assistant-Process: 4014535@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: d0036016-73e8-4da1-8e47-563e3ab39a3c
2026-08-28 22:01:47 +02:00
ee94c18938 WARDEN-WP-0033 finished — key-cape accepted the issuance question five days ago
T04 was the last open task, waiting on key-cape to accept or refuse ownership of
the coding-agent OpenBao issuance identity. They accepted, in KEY-WP-0009-T03,
on 2026-08-23: codex-railiance-platform is published in their
config/service-clients.example.yaml with subject service:codex:railiance-platform,
role coding-agent, scope openbao:login, 15m lifetime, and the service-auth
semantics in docs/openbao-service-auth-contract.md. The split is the one we
routed for — KeyCape issues, railiance-platform binds the OpenBao role, OpenBao
enforces, no secret value in either repo.

We found it by reading their repository. KEY-WP-0009-T04 records replying to
ops-warden; the inbox has zero messages from key-cape, read or unread. The task
sat `wait` on an answer that already existed.

That is T05's own lesson arriving on T04: a blocker is a claim about the world at
a date. So the same pass re-verified the two lanes pointing at key-cape against
their source instead of bumping dates:

- rapp-qonto-keycape-client -> verified: source-read. KEY-WP-0009-T02 did add
  bounded service-auth, but that is client_credentials JWT issuance for OpenBao
  machine login and does not front this client_secret_basic exchange or its
  rotation. Blocker stands, now with evidence rather than memory.
- key-cape-oidc-login -> asked of key-cape today, which the entry had recorded
  as still outstanding since 2026-08-21.

Also cleared the inbox that hid this: 9 stale unread, all superseded by shipped
work, with late closes sent to secrets-engine and llm-connect on the two threads
that had asked ops-warden something and never got an answer.

391 tests pass, ruff clean, boundary coverage 0 uncovered.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01YWBMovyFoy9RRrfL7zKvPJ

Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: opus
Assistant-Process: 4014535@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: d0036016-73e8-4da1-8e47-563e3ab39a3c
2026-08-28 22:00:09 +02:00
d7f4ebcfe0 Re-emit the high-risk path artifact after the NetKingdom SSO lanes
c374d41 added net-kingdom-lldap-bind-credential and
net-kingdom-privacyidea-admin-token as `risk: high` and did not re-run the
emitter, so registry/generated/high-risk-data-paths.yaml still described the
catalog at 0fae090. railiance-platform consumes that file instead of
hand-maintaining its deny list, and it has been reading a census two lanes short
since 2026-08-23.

This is precisely the drift WARDEN-WP-0033-T03 built the guard for — a lane
graded high after the last emit silently failing to reach the consumer. The
guard fired; nothing had acted on it.

The deny list itself does not move: both lanes are blocked on their OpenBao path
being published, so they land in `no_concrete_path` and concrete_path_count
stays 14. What changes is the count the consumer sees — 23 high-risk lanes, two
of which have no address yet. That is the honest signal and the reason the
bucket is listed rather than omitted.

check_agent_read_boundary.py still reports 0 uncovered.

The workload-join census moves 9 -> 11 not-applicable: both lanes are
provider/control-plane credentials rather than workload delivery lanes.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01YWBMovyFoy9RRrfL7zKvPJ

Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: opus
Assistant-Process: 4014535@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: d0036016-73e8-4da1-8e47-563e3ab39a3c
2026-08-28 21:55:33 +02:00
5 changed files with 78 additions and 14 deletions

View file

@ -10,12 +10,12 @@
# declares it, and is null where the field set has not been established --
# null means unknown, never 'one field'.
generated_at: "2026-08-22T23:31:10Z"
generated_at: "2026-08-28T19:58:57Z"
source: ops-warden/registry/routing/catalog.yaml
catalog_revision: "0fae0904ce8d8694338dd53a8a79abec5fec788d"
catalog_revision_date: "2026-08-23T01:31:05+02:00"
catalog_dirty: false
high_risk_lane_count: 21
catalog_revision: "c374d41a4925720ae7706dfda020537b60a07eb9"
catalog_revision_date: "2026-08-23T21:43:12+02:00"
catalog_dirty: true
high_risk_lane_count: 23
concrete_path_count: 14
# Graded high but not a single KV address -- a routing pattern, a broker
@ -23,6 +23,8 @@ concrete_path_count: 14
no_concrete_path:
- database-dynamic-credentials
- inter-hub-bootstrap-ssh
- net-kingdom-lldap-bind-credential
- net-kingdom-privacyidea-admin-token
- object-storage-sts
- openbao-api-key
- openbao-platform-admin-login

View file

@ -281,8 +281,8 @@ entries:
delegation:
mode: interim
intended_owner: key-cape
blocked_on: "REFUSED by secrets-engine 2026-08-21: login, MFA and identity-token issuance are key-cape/Keycloak's; secrets-engine may consume OIDC for OpenBao auth but does not own the login capability. ops-warden agrees — intended_owner corrected from secrets-engine to key-cape. Not yet asked of key-cape."
reviewed: "2026-08-21"
blocked_on: "REFUSED by secrets-engine 2026-08-21: login, MFA and identity-token issuance are key-cape/Keycloak's; secrets-engine may consume OIDC for OpenBao auth but does not own the login capability. ops-warden agrees — intended_owner corrected from secrets-engine to key-cape. Asked of key-cape 2026-08-28; KEY-WP-0009 accepting issuance ownership for machine identities is the precedent that makes it answerable."
reviewed: "2026-08-28"
verified: asked-and-waiting
# Login lane (WP-0014 T4) — interactive auth bootstrap, not a secret read. No
# secret-read gate (you have no identity yet) and no caller-auth precheck (the
@ -710,9 +710,9 @@ entries:
delegation:
mode: interim
intended_owner: key-cape
blocked_on: "client_secret_basic exchange is a key-cape protocol procedure, not a KV read; KEY-WP-0008 finished 2026-08-15 without a key-cape-native exchange/rotation command, and the workplan that would add one is not yet opened (key-cape acked interim 2026-08-15)"
reviewed: "2026-08-17"
verified: unverified
blocked_on: "client_secret_basic exchange is a key-cape protocol procedure, not a KV read; still no key-cape-native exchange/rotation command. Re-checked against key-cape source 2026-08-28: KEY-WP-0009 finished 2026-08-23 and did add bounded service-auth (per-client tokenLifetime, docs/openbao-service-auth-contract.md), but that is client_credentials JWT issuance for OpenBao machine login — it does not front this client_secret_basic exchange or its rotation. The server advertises client_secret_basic (src/internal/server/oidc/discovery.go) without exposing an owner command for it. Blocker stands."
reviewed: "2026-08-28"
verified: source-read
risk: high
workload_ref:
applicability: applicable

View file

@ -14,7 +14,9 @@ def test_repo_catalog_uses_only_explicit_workload_references():
assert report["ok"] is True
assert len(report["resolved"]) == 3
assert len(report["unknown"]) == 17
assert len(report["not_applicable"]) == 9
# 11 since WARDEN-WP-0033: the two NetKingdom SSO lanes (c374d41) are
# provider/control-plane credentials, not workload delivery lanes.
assert len(report["not_applicable"]) == 11
assert {row["lane"] for row in report["resolved"]} == {
"ops-warden-warden-sign-token",
"issue-core-ingestion-api-key",

View file

@ -222,6 +222,39 @@ test results, and infra acceptance. T02 remains `progress` until
that owner gate is open; acceptance will permit preparation of a new scenario,
not execution or reuse of the terminal one.
**Owner gate CLOSED — accepted 2026-08-23, found 2026-08-28.**
`railiance-platform` accepted the exact revision `0fae0904`. Recorded in their
`RPF-WP-0017-attended-login-output-containment.md` (`status: finished`), which
also records railiance-infra's independent approval at `186b030` and marks all
five acceptance criteria met. The receipt digest was verified here rather than
taken on trust: `docs/evidence/RAILIANCE-WP-0026-T01-ops-warden-receipt.json` at
ops-warden `bc1966da` hashes to
`d2ba444ed16989590325697e69d25283dc75a9432c29a72e627e80bf9fd987e4`, matching
their record exactly.
Note the identifier: the remediation interface recorded above as
`RAILIANCE-WP-0026-T01` is `RPF-WP-0017-T01` in the owner's repo. Searching for
the cited id finds an unrelated workplan, which is part of why this sat unnoticed.
**Their acceptance is source acceptance only and authorizes no live OIDC or
drill** — their words, and the boundary holds. So T02's state changes but its
`Done when` does not: what was blocked was *preparing a new scenario*, and that
is now permitted. The terminal NO-GO scenario and its receipts remain unusable.
**Third instance of the same failure this session.** The acceptance existed for
five days; no message reached ops-warden. Identically, `key-cape` accepted the
WP-0033-T04 question on 2026-08-23 with no message, and nine unread messages
were sitting on already-superseded threads. The `verified:` field added by
WP-0033-T05 was built for exactly this and it works — what does not work is
waiting for a counterparty to tell you. Re-checking a blocker means reading the
owner's repository.
**Remaining to close T02:** one attended production emergency seal/unseal drill,
requiring a new scenario id, fresh owner receipts from platform/infra/master, a
fully parameterized green preflight, and a new human GO. It is executed by the
platform owner, never by a coding agent. That is an operator decision, not an
agent one, so T02 stays `progress` and the decision is surfaced rather than taken.
## Task: Tamper-evident policy governance + reconcile
```task

View file

@ -4,14 +4,14 @@ type: workplan
title: "Native lane handoff — review secrets-engine's catalog admission, and fix what it exposed"
domain: infotech
repo: ops-warden
status: active
status: finished
owner: ops-warden
topic_slug: netkingdom
planning_priority: P1
depends_on_workplans:
- WARDEN-WP-0030
created: "2026-08-21"
updated: "2026-08-23"
updated: "2026-08-28"
state_hub_workstream_id: "4627d89b-4b00-562a-81e9-76e96f90fa7e"
---
@ -160,7 +160,7 @@ railiance-platform may deny more, deny less, or dispute a grade (`ADR-0002`).
```task
id: WARDEN-WP-0033-T04
status: wait
status: done
priority: medium
state_hub_task_id: "5acac140-a586-5db3-b231-bbf236710786"
```
@ -212,6 +212,33 @@ accept that target identity with an authoritative workplan/interface, or refuse
and name the actual owner. T04 remains `wait` until one of those two answers is
recorded; the live AppRole is operational evidence, not an ownership answer.
**Answered — accepted. Closed 2026-08-28.** `key-cape` accepted issuance
ownership in `KEY-WP-0009-T03` (`status: done`, 2026-08-23): the non-secret static
registration `codex-railiance-platform` is published in
`key-cape/config/service-clients.example.yaml` — subject
`service:codex:railiance-platform`, tenant `tenant:coulomb`, role `coding-agent`,
scope `openbao:login`, `client_credentials`, 15-minute lifetime — with the
service-auth claims, renewal, expiry and failure semantics in
`key-cape/docs/openbao-service-auth-contract.md` (`T02`). The split is exactly the
one the routing asked for: KeyCape owns JWT issuance and client disablement,
railiance-platform owns the exact-bound OpenBao role and policy, OpenBao owns
enforcement, and no secret value enters either repository.
**The answer was found by reading their repo, not by receiving it.**
`KEY-WP-0009-T04` records replying to ops-warden; no such message exists in the
ops-warden inbox — 0 messages from `key-cape`, read or unread. The acceptance had
been sitting done for five days while this task sat `wait` on it.
That is the T05 lesson landing on T04: a blocker is a claim about the world at a
date, and this one had stopped being true. `verified: source-read` is doing real
work here — it is the difference between "we asked" and "we checked". The
mechanism is right; what it needs is for someone to run it, which is why the
lanes below were re-verified in the same pass rather than date-bumped.
Consequence for `ADR-0004`: the honour-system `WARDEN_AGENT_ID` marker now has a
real issuance identity behind it on the OpenBao side. ops-warden remains a
consumer of that identity and does not own it.
```task
id: WARDEN-WP-0033-T05
status: done