secrets-engine/intakes/intakes.md
repo-manager 44b97e3c48
All checks were successful
CI Smoke / host-smoke (push) Successful in 0s
CI Smoke / container-smoke (push) Successful in 1s
repo.work.create_intake SECRETS-IN-0001
correlation_id: 6045c4c5-4c9b-4588-8cef-78f2cd66f3c0
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
2026-08-28 23:02:14 +02:00

2.1 KiB

Intake records

SECRETS-IN-0001 — Declaration requested: state this repository's layer in INTENT.md (security layer model §11)

id: SECRETS-IN-0001
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: secrets-engine
requested_by: gate-house
proposed_layer: Engine
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, and the standard does not claim adoption
  on the basis of notes gate-house wrote. REQUESTED: state the layer in INTENT.md
  in your own voice, or contest it. PROPOSED LAYER: Engine. Credential abstraction,
  custody, lifecycle. Two boundaries worth stating in your words: the decision that
  authority exists is access-engine''s, and the doctrine governing when authority
  may be materialized is gate-house''s. Also relevant: ops-warden has declared its
  SSH-CA signing write to OpenBao as an engine gap with intended owner secrets-engine,
  blocked on ''no engine exposes an SSH-CA surface''. You may want to contest or accept
  that intended ownership. 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: '2026-08-28T21:02:14.320087Z'
updated: '2026-08-28T21:02:14.320087Z'