Skip to content

[Docs] Audit task lifecycle verification gaps - #1626

Draft
zoomote[bot] wants to merge 9 commits into
mainfrom
feature/lifecycle-formal-verification-0ebv6vfh08pal
Draft

[Docs] Audit task lifecycle verification gaps#1626
zoomote[bot] wants to merge 9 commits into
mainfrom
feature/lifecycle-formal-verification-0ebv6vfh08pal

Conversation

@zoomote

@zoomote zoomote Bot commented Sep 13, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

​Created by Roomote. Follow up by mentioning @roomote, in the web UI, or in Discord.

What changed

  • Added bounded formal checks for the planned fan-out contract and strengthened provider handoff visibility without changing production runtime behavior.
  • Reworked the lifecycle architecture tracker into a self-contained behavior-led gap audit. Each gap states its invariant, evidence class, production/model boundary, runtime impact, missing work, and objective closure criteria.
  • Kept issue and PR links only in a historical provenance section rather than requiring them to understand active gaps.
  • Added cross-model coverage classifications and links from the focused cleanup/parser architecture pages.
  • Removed the technical lifecycle tracker reference from the root README; the detailed audit remains under docs/architecture.

Why this change was made

A green bounded checker can validate a premise, proxy, or abstract state space without proving the corresponding production behavior. The tracker now makes those distinctions explicit and prevents open runtime obligations from being described as covered or closed merely because a model command passes.

Impact

There is no production or UI behavior change. Contributors get an explicit formal-verification gap inventory and objective criteria for promoting each gap to production-backed coverage. Runtime fixes, shared types, scheduler behavior, and Zoo-Code-Docs are intentionally outside this PR.

Related PRs

@coderabbitai

coderabbitai Bot commented Sep 13, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Important

Review skipped

Auto reviews are limited based on label configuration.

🏷️ Required labels (at least one) (1)
  • coderabbit-review-active

Please check the settings in the CodeRabbit UI or the .coderabbit.yaml file in this repository. To trigger a single review, invoke the @coderabbitai review command.

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml

Review profile: ASSERTIVE

Plan: Advanced

Run ID: 3ae216f5-2ddb-42e6-8b99-af5aef01470e

You can disable this status message by setting the reviews.review_status to false in the CodeRabbit configuration file.

Use the checkbox below for a quick retry:

  • 🔍 Trigger review

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.

❤️ Share

Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.

@github-actions

github-actions Bot commented Sep 13, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Review status

This PR was opened by an automated account. A human maintainer must verify the change intent, provenance, and validation before merging.

Current step: Mark the PR ready. Required CI must pass before CodeRabbit starts.

Review-state labels are managed by this workflow; do not edit them manually.

@codecov

codecov Bot commented Sep 13, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.

📢 Thoughts on this report? Let us know!

@zoomote

zoomote Bot commented Sep 13, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Reconciled #1626 with #1623 and runtime-fix PR #1625 in commit fed91bb86. The checker now claims only selector/write-side coverage, retains a divergent task/provider-mode witness for the downstream obligation, and the traceability docs and PR description explicitly assign environment/tool reader correctness to #1625. pnpm lifecycle:model-check, typechecking, lint, and the full test suite pass; no UI proof applies.

@zoomote zoomote Bot changed the title [Chore] Formalize remaining task lifecycle issue protocols [Chore] Formalize fan-out and trace delegated mode readers Sep 13, 2026
@zoomote

zoomote Bot commented Sep 13, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Completed the lifecycle coverage audit in commit 70d7ac60a. Every protocol area and issue row now states its evidence class, production/model relationship, bounds, omitted consumers, and remaining obligations; passed is explicitly defined as bounded success rather than issue closure. README now links the authoritative tracker, and child model docs link back to its audit. pnpm lifecycle:model-check, typechecking, lint, and the full test suite pass; visual proof is not applicable.

@zoomote zoomote Bot changed the title [Chore] Formalize fan-out and trace delegated mode readers [Chore] Audit and formalize task lifecycle verification Sep 13, 2026
@zoomote

zoomote Bot commented Sep 13, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Completed the live-state traceability re-audit in commit 48644f714. Retained open #1469, #1021, #1623, #369/#372, and #612 because production or enforcement gaps remain. Moved closed #1453/#1279, #921, #920, and #1468 to verified history, preserving all bounded/proxy limitations and redirecting adjacent open risks to their active issues. pnpm lifecycle:model-check, typechecking, lint, and the full test suite pass; visual proof is not applicable.

@zoomote

zoomote Bot commented Sep 13, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Re-scoped #1626 to documentation/formal-model audit only at 20aebc49f. All runtime, shared-type, scheduler, production-test, and Zoo-Code-Docs changes introduced during the attempted implementation were reverted; the net PR diff contains only architecture docs, model-check scripts, and command wiring. The root README has no lifecycle tracker link. pnpm lifecycle:model-check, typechecking, and lint pass; visual proof is not applicable.

@zoomote zoomote Bot changed the title [Chore] Audit and formalize task lifecycle verification [Docs] Audit task lifecycle verification gaps Sep 13, 2026
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants