docs(proposal): add source-of-truth and release evidence proposal#241
Conversation
|
You have reached your Codex usage limits for code reviews. You can see your limits in the Codex usage dashboard. |
|
Warning Rate limit exceeded
You’ve run out of usage credits. Purchase more in the billing tab. ⌛ How to resolve this issue?After the wait time has elapsed, a review can be triggered using the We recommend that you space out your commits to avoid hitting the rate limit. 🚦 How do rate limits work?CodeRabbit enforces hourly rate limits for each developer per organization. Our paid plans have higher rate limits than the trial, open-source and free plans. In all cases, we re-allow further reviews after a brief timeout. Please see our FAQ for further information. ℹ️ Review info⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: Organization UI Review profile: ASSERTIVE Plan: Pro Run ID: 📒 Files selected for processing (1)
✨ Finishing Touches🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. Comment |
|
Droid finished @EffortlessSteven's task —— View job Droid review complete. Validation result: approved — no candidates to post. PR #241 adds a single proposal document (SHIPPER-PROP-0001) describing a source-of-truth and release evidence framework. The document is internally consistent, correctly describes future work without claiming existing implementation, and contains no executable code. No code review or security issues identified. Inspected surfaces: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Code Review
This pull request introduces SHIPPER-PROP-0001, a proposal for a linked source-of-truth stack to formalize the relationship between product claims and verifiable evidence. Feedback highlights inconsistencies between the architectural diagram and its descriptive list, the omission of the 'no-panic' check from the evidence plan, and the need to clarify the role of non-blocking commands like 'policy-report' within the proof stack.
| Linked PRs: | ||
| Support-tier impact: future support-tier claim map | ||
| Policy impact: policy ledgers remain the source of truth for exceptions and receipts | ||
| Proof commands: cargo xtask check-file-policy --mode blocking-allowlist; cargo xtask policy-report; cargo fmt --all -- --check |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The no-panic check is identified as a "strong proof piece" in the Problem section (line 20) but is omitted from the Proof commands metadata here and the Evidence Plan (lines 100-102). Including it would ensure that all identified safety proofs are formally tracked in the evidence stack.
| proposal -> spec -> ADR -> plan -> active goal -> proof command -> artifact | ||
| ``` | ||
|
|
||
| Each layer has one job: | ||
|
|
||
| - proposals explain why | ||
| - specs define behavior and required evidence | ||
| - ADRs record durable architecture decisions | ||
| - plans define PR sequencing, rollback, and proof commands | ||
| - active goals define current machine-readable execution state | ||
| - support tiers map claims to proof commands and artifacts | ||
| - policy ledgers receipt exceptions and enforcement state | ||
| - release artifacts record what happened for a specific version |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There is a minor inconsistency between the "Proposed Shape" diagram and the subsequent descriptive list:\n\n1. The diagram (line 61) includes proof command as a distinct node, but the list (lines 66-73) omits it as a top-level item, instead mentioning it under plans.\n2. The list includes support tiers and policy ledgers, which are absent from the diagram.\n\nAligning these two sections would improve the clarity of the proposed source-of-truth stack.
| Initial proof is repository-local: | ||
|
|
||
| - `cargo xtask check-file-policy --mode blocking-allowlist` | ||
| - `cargo xtask policy-report` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
cargo xtask policy-report is currently implemented as "Always advisory" and "never bails" (see xtask/src/policy_report.rs:8-52). Listing it as a "proof" command in the Evidence Plan might be misleading if the intention is for these commands to serve as blocking gates in CI. You may want to clarify if a blocking mode for the unified report is planned or if the proof relies on the individual sub-commands.
Summary
Scope boundary
This is PR 3 only: one proposal artifact. It intentionally does not add specs, support tiers, ADRs, active goals, checker code, CI wiring, or #195 release proof work.
Validation
cargo fmt --all -- --checkcargo xtask check-file-policy --mode blocking-allowlistcargo xtask policy-report