coulomb/user-engine
4
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions
user-engine/intakes/intakes.md
repo-manager c5b55036d3
All checks were successful
CI Smoke / host-smoke (push) Successful in 0s
Details
CI Smoke / container-smoke (push) Successful in 1s
Details
repo.work.create_intake USER-IN-0001 
correlation_id: 6fa20b48-a3c2-4a5e-807b-80660896608e
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 23:02:12 +02:00

1.9 KiB
Raw Blame History

Intake records

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

id: USER-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: user-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. Users, accounts, memberships.
  Your boundary contract (net-kingdom/canon/standards/user-engine-boundary-contract_v0.1.md)
  holds unchanged; the only addition is making explicit that subject context is an
  input to the authorization decision and never a decision. 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: '2026-08-28T21:02:12.760565Z'
updated: '2026-08-28T21:02:12.760565Z'