Phase A (safety): - scripts/p3_rollback.sh (+test): restore all privileged P3 surfaces from a recorded baseline; --dry-run default, --apply gated. Correct App-uninstall (App JWT) model; per-task env-reviewer restore by numeric id; real protection post-restore assert (normalize reads argv, fails loud, divergent state exits non-zero — regression-tested). KNOWN-LIMITATIONS header flags the branch-protection GET->PUT transform + live-validation for the C1 gate. - scripts/assert_no_write_token.py (+test): box/CI audit that no write token (incl. ghu_/ghr_ prefixes + App PEM) lives on the box. - draft_pr_monitor.py (+test): runaway (>3/15min) + stale (7d) draft-PR sweep, wired into tick() and bound a read-only provider in serve. Phase B (wiring): systemd EnvironmentFile P3 vars + verification; new-draft-PR lifecycle notice. Phase E (docs): P3-LIVE-FLIP-PLAN/README/ci-README reflect CI-live-since-6/22 + box-integration; runbook consolidated (rollback Incident 7 + box-env wiring); removed a stray duplicate runbook. Suite: 1360 passed, ruff clean. Branch only; not merged/deployed. REMAINING HUMAN GATES: C1 /sh-security-review + GPT-4.1 cross-review on the enabled workflow + rollback script; D box deploy + smoke + merge. |
||
|---|---|---|
| .. | ||
| README.md | ||
agent-team/ci — split-job CI apply/verify workflow (Plane-2 leaf)
MOVED + LIVE (2026-06-22): the workflow is now a registered GitHub Actions workflow at
.github/workflows/agent-team-apply-verify.yml(repo root) — GitHub Actions only runs workflows under.github/workflows/, so the prioragent-team/ci/location was inert scaffolding. The privileged steps are flipped live, gated by theagent-applyenvironment's required reviewer; the trusted-dispatcher transport isagent_team/dispatcher.py. This directory now holds docs only.
The split-job CI apply/verify workflow turns a builder agent's
untrusted candidate diff into a verified draft PR — the §3.3.2 trust
boundary, Phase P3 (§7.1) of ../../docs/r720-agent-team-design.md.
STATUS: DEPLOY-GATED. NOT ENABLED, NOT PROVISIONED. This is authored as files only. Per the design (§3.3.2, §7.1 P3) the workflow must clear BOTH
/sh-security-reviewAND the mandatory GPT-4.1 cross-review before deployment, because it is untrusted-input handling + a CI trust boundary. The privileged draft-PR step is hard-disabled (if: ${{ false }}); the ONLY remaining step to go live is the provisioning flip (create the GitHub App, theagent-applyenvironment with a required reviewer, and branch protection, then flip the step'sif:). Nothing here is wired to a live org repo.AUTH MODEL (LOCKED): GitHub App installation token — ZERO cloud credentials, no token-federation. The privileged
gate-and-prjob authenticates with a GitHub App installation token (pull-requests: write) minted at run time by SHA-pinnedactions/create-github-app-token. There is no AWS and no cloud-OIDC anywhere in this workflow. The required human reviewer lives on theagent-applyGitHub Environment (configured at provisioning, not in YAML).
Files
| File | What it is |
|---|---|
agent-team-apply-verify.yml |
The split-job workflow. Self-contained: the load-bearing gate logic (diff integrity, trust-control denylist, declared-scope check, pure-code pass/fail) is embedded inline as stdlib-only, type-hinted Python heredocs, so the workflow has no external script dependency. |
README.md |
This file. |
The filename is kebab-case per the handbook. Deployment target (later, after the
gates): promote into Sea-Haven-Industries/.github as a reusable workflow
(engineering-handbook/cicd.md); the trusted apply path (which owns the GitHub
App write token) invokes it.
The trust boundary (design §3.3.2)
The builder agents are semi-trusted: an LLM that read repo content can be wrong or prompt-injected, so the candidate diff is treated as untrusted code. The threat is that executing it in CI with org credentials lets a bad diff exfiltrate secrets, assume the deploy role, or tamper with other repos. The workflow implements all five boundaries:
- Split CI — untrusted execution is credential-less. The job that checks
out and runs the diff (
build-test) runs withpermissions: contents: read, no secrets, no App token, no write token, and egress blocked (harden-runner). The patch executes only there, where there is nothing to steal and nothing to assume. Every privileged action (the GitHub App token mint, the draft-PR open) runs in a separategate-and-prjob that never checks out or executes patch-controlled code — it consumes the build/test report as data only. There is nopull_request_target+ head-ref checkout (the "pwn request" anti-pattern). Thebuild-testjob also runs a post-build denied-path check: after the build/test step, it diffs the working tree against the committed patched baseline and fails if a build hook (setup.py, conftest, postinstall, Makefile) wrote into the trust-control surface or out of declared scope — closing the build-hook write vector. - Trust-control-surface denylist (CI-side hard fail). The
guardjob rejects any diff that touches.github/workflows/**, IAM/policy IaC (CDK/SAM/Terraform), branch-protection /CODEOWNERS/ Dependabot config, or files outside the task's declared scope. The match is not naive: it canonicalizes paths, rejects parent-directory traversal, and inspectsrename from/toheaders, so a rename into a denied path — or path indirection — cannot bypass it. Such a diff is escalated to mandatory human + GPT cross-review, never auto-built. - Diff integrity, box → CI. The builder records the candidate diff's sha256
in the task ledger (foundation
agent_team.state_storecontent-hash idiom). CI re-hashes the diff and verifies it equals the recorded hash before applying (in bothguardand again pre-apply inbuild-test). Precisely: this is an unkeyed hash that binds the bytes CI applies to the hash the dispatcher recorded — it detects accidental corruption or substitution of the artifact in transit between the trusted dispatcher and CI. It does not prove the diff matches the approved plan, and it cannot defend a compromised box that generates both the diff and its hash (see "Threat-model honesty" below). A keyed/attested binding to the approval record is a later hardening. - Pure-code pass/fail gate over authenticated results. Mirroring secrev's
"one pure-code script owns the block decision," the
gate-and-prgate reads only the authenticatedneeds.*.resultjob conclusions (GitHub-controlled, patch-independent) keyed to the run id + diff hash. It never trusts a success/failure file or artifact the patch could have written. The verifier agent only reads failures to propose the next fix; it cannot declare success. - Branch protection is the final enforcement. The draft PR targets a protected branch; the locked-down checks are required; merge needs them green plus the security-review, the Claude Code App review, and human approval. The agent never auto-merges (D2).
Threat-model honesty (§3.3.2). The diff hash protects box → CI transit (tamper/substitution), not a box that is itself compromised — the box is in the trusted computing base for what it proposes. The real backstops against a bad box are the credential-less build job, the trust-control-surface denylist, and above all the human review of the draft PR plus required checks (nothing merges without Adam).
Job graph
workflow_dispatch (task_id, diff_artifact_name, expected_diff_hash, declared_scope)
│
▼
guard contents:read, no secrets — validates the diff as DATA:
(boundaries 2,3) re-hash + denylist + scope. Never applies it.
│ (needs)
▼
build-test contents:read, no secrets, no App token, egress blocked —
(boundary 1) the ONLY job that applies + runs the UNTRUSTED patch.
│ (needs) Emits a NON-authoritative report artifact.
▼
gate-and-pr privileged home, but NEVER checks out patch code. Pure-code
(boundaries 1,4,5) gate over authenticated needs.*.result → DRAFT PR
(hard-disabled until the review gates pass).
permissions: {} at the workflow level (least privilege); each job re-declares
its own grant explicitly. The trigger is workflow_dispatch only — the patch
never runs in a context carrying write or secret scope.
Run-name correlation (box dispatcher → run_id)
The box-side dispatcher (agent_team/dispatcher.py) triggers this workflow with
gh workflow run, which does not return the resulting run id. The dispatcher
must still resolve that run_id so the verifier's read-only CI-result fetcher can
poll the correct run (a None/unfound run_id fails closed → the verifier gate
BLOCKs / the task parks; never a vacuous pass). The correlation key is the
workflow run name:
run-name: "agent-team-apply ${{ inputs.task_id }}"
Why the run name and not the workflow input or the head branch:
gh run list --json nameexposes the run name, but workflow inputs are not queryable via the run list, so thetask_idcannot be matched on the input.- A
workflow_dispatchrun reports against themainref, not the dispatch head branch, so the branch is not a usable discriminator either.
So the dispatcher polls gh run list read-only, matches the row whose name
equals agent-team-apply <task_id> (mirrored in code by dispatcher.run_name_for),
and bounds the match to runs created after the dispatch watermark. The workflow's
concurrency group already guarantees a single in-flight run per task_id, so
the run name plus the dispatched-at floor identify the dispatched run
unambiguously even under many simultaneous dispatches; the pure
dispatcher.select_run_id then applies the anti-stale tie-break (skip a superseded
cancelled run sharing the name, prefer the later-created databaseId).
This run-name is additive: it adds no job, permission, secret, or trigger,
and changes no privileged step — it only surfaces the dispatching task's id for
correlation. Because the file is nonetheless a CI trust-boundary workflow
(untrusted-input handling), the edit is flagged for the C1 re-run of
/sh-security-review AND the mandatory GPT-4.1 cross-review before it ships on
this branch, matching the in-YAML P3-BOX-INTEGRATION comment.
SHA-pinned actions (handbook Pinning Principle, §3.3.2)
Every third-party action is pinned to a full commit SHA with the human-readable tag in a trailing comment:
| Action | SHA | Tag |
|---|---|---|
actions/checkout |
11bd71901bbe5b1630ceea73d27597364c9af683 |
v4.2.2 |
actions/download-artifact |
fa0a91b85d4f404e444e00e005971372dc801d16 |
v4.1.8 |
actions/upload-artifact |
b4b15b8c7c6ac21ea08fcf65892d2ee8f75cf882 |
v4.4.3 |
actions/setup-python |
0b93645e9fea7318ecaed2b359559ac225c90a2b |
v5.3.0 |
actions/create-github-app-token |
5d869da34e18e7287c1daad50e0b8ea0f506ce69 |
v1.11.0 |
step-security/harden-runner |
0080882f6c36860b6ba35c610c98ce87d4e2f26f |
v2.10.2 |
Relationship to the foundation
This leaf imports the committed Plane-2 foundation contracts verbatim (it does not redefine them):
- The diff-hash recorded in the ledger and re-checked in CI is the same
content-hash idiom as
agent_team.state_store.compute_content_hash(§6.7). - The task this workflow verifies is an
agent_team.task_model.TaskRecord; itscandidate_diff+diff_hashfields (§3.3) are exactly theexpected_diff_hashthis workflow consumes, andci_resultsis what the verifier writes back from the authenticated gate (boundary 4). - The ledger that records provenance (diff hash, run id, gate decision) is the
agent_team.dbschema (pending_questions/budget_ledgerlive there; per-task CI provenance is recorded against the task thread).
Tests
The workflow's embedded gate logic (diff integrity, the trust-control denylist
with path-canonicalization + rename/copy/delete detection, the symlink-escape
reject, and declared-scope enforcement) is stdlib-only, type-hinted, and
ruff-clean, and is covered by a committed, runnable suite:
../tests/test_ci_gate_workflow.py extracts the inline guard script from this
YAML and executes it against good and adversarial diffs — clean in-scope,
hash mismatch, workflow delete, copy-into-denied, symlink addition, non-UTF-8,
out-of-scope, unscoped, and escaping-scope. Run it with the rest of the suite:
python3 -m pytest agent-team/tests/ -q from the repo root. (The claim that the
gate is "verified" is therefore backed by that test, not by authoring alone.)
Deploy gating (do NOT skip)
Before this ships (§3.3.2, §7.1 P3):
/sh-security-reviewover this workflow (untrusted-input handling + CI trust boundary).- Mandatory GPT-4.1 cross-review of the workflow. (No IAM/cloud role is involved — the auth model is a GitHub App installation token, not OIDC/AWS.)
- Provisioning (the single remaining step to go live):
- Create the GitHub App with a single permission (
pull-requests: write), install it on the target repo, and store its id + private key as theAGENT_APPLY_APP_ID/AGENT_APPLY_APP_PRIVATE_KEYsecrets. - Create the
agent-applyGitHub Environment with a required reviewer (and optional wait timer) — this is the human gate, configured on the Environment, not in YAML. - Configure branch protection on the target branch (required checks + human approval).
- Issue the read-only token for the CI-result fetcher
(
AGENT_TEAM_CI_READ_TOKEN, falling back toGITHUB_TOKEN).
- Create the GitHub App with a single permission (
- A documented, exercised rollback (uninstall the App, remove the environment, revert the workflow).
- Only then: flip the App-token + draft-PR steps'
if: ${{ false }}to the live condition documented in the workflow (always() && needs.guard.result=='success' && needs.build-test.result=='success' && steps.gate.outputs.gate=='pass'), and promote toSea-Haven-Industries/.github. Draft PRs only; never auto-merge.