Repository navigation
🐛🧑💻 - Published consumer SDD requires a nonexistent repository verification script #858
Description
Is there an existing issue for this?
- I have searched the existing issues. Exact-command search returned 🐛🧑💻 - bug SDD catalog links discard nested specification directories #768, 🐛🧑💻 - Automated Codecov User reports incorrectly make complete diff review context partial #724 and ✨ - Guarded evidencegated pullrequest approvals by the workflow bot #398, which concern different behavior.
Which actions are affected?
Issue
Which platforms are affected?
macOS, Linux
Description
The pre-branch SDD publisher added a repository verification command that does not exist in the selected consumer source. Domus issue21 produced a valid-format companion, but its Definition of Done requires pnpm run validate:specifications; the selected package.json has no such script. Executing the published instruction fails ERR_PNPM_NO_SCRIPT. SDD publication/format consistency therefore does not establish that the repository-specific verification instruction is usable.
Expected: ground runnable project commands in the selected repository snapshot, or describe the required validation outcome without inventing a script. Do not add/alter consumer workflows, Copilot resources or verification limits to make invented commands appear installed. Legitimate existing commands must remain supported, and unknown repository/runtime evidence must remain explicitly unknown.
Reproducing the issue
- Read the actual published companion at a9c4b97, line 403. It says
pnpm run validate:specificationsmust pass. - Inspect selected-base package.json. Its scripts do not define that command. The publication commit changed only the companion and catalogs, so it did not install that command.
- Run the literal instruction in a checkout of that consumer source. Observed on Node24.20.0/pnpm10.34.0:
ERR_PNPM_NO_SCRIPT Missing script: validate:specifications. - The unchanged pinned original SDK format/owner-consistency validation accepts the document. Seven original modules were independently Git-blob-byte-verified before validation. Local validator acceptance is not Action publication or implementation acceptance.
Publication and exact Action branch readiness did succeed; this is a published content defect, not the earlier ownership/size/mapping failures (#856/#763/#833). Those are not asserted to have the same cause.
Suggested regression scope: real selected script, absent script, package-manager mismatch, conflicting default-versus-selected snapshots, unknown source, and a valid generic validation outcome without an invented command. Preserve the full owning product/case inventories and publication validation.
copilot Version
Consumer runtime pinned at 3e7ceea08e6131360e026937d1c0cc1b120472e0; native publication a9c4b9723c66868884476743940102ada65d2db0. No claim that a newer upstream revision was tested.
Relevant Log Output
ERR_PNPM_NO_SCRIPT Missing script: validate:specifications
Additional context and comments
Consumer recovery replaces this unsupported command in the Domus-owned draft with the actual required original pinned format/consistency validation outcome and keeps normal CI/docs/coverage checks. No Copilot code, resource, configuration, workflow, credential, dependency or size limit was changed. Full administration acceptance remains outstanding. A separate factual SHA256 transcription in the same generated draft was corrected against the immutable source proof; no shared internal root cause is inferred from that observation.
Metadata
Metadata
Assignees
Labels
Type
Projects
- Status
Activity
[-]Published consumer SDD requires a nonexistent repository verification script[/-][+]🐛 - Published consumer SDD requires a nonexistent repository verification script[/+]vypbot commentedon Nov 2, 2026
Hi! I’m @vypbot, the Copilot assistant for this repository.
I can answer questions, explain the codebase, propose implementation and test plans, review issues and pull requests for potential bugs or security problems, and help authorized maintainers apply changes.
Try
/copilot helpto see the available commands, or mention @vypbot with your question.efraespada commentedon Nov 2, 2026
Additional published factual transcription on the same native a9c4b97 companion, independent of the unsupported-command observation: the owner evidence line cites f315a00d9efbb7da8a9ea44ab0da8a9df2d088e100a, but git rev-parse 4b71969d3b3f6df5f28d617ab0da4e86c9be5884:specs/household-administration.md returns f315a00d9efbb7da8a9ea44de8a9df2d088e100a. Native review vypdev/domus#24 (comment) correctly identified this. Domus is correcting that citation while preserving the owner bytes and72 cases. The source owner is still57838bytes with SHA256333791e5664212473dd8874be9751c00c8ee7644cf9f861f11a3876dd97321f3. Another supplied raw-DB SHA transcription had already been corrected against the original input. These observations support checking generated factual claims against selected immutable evidence; no common internal root cause with the invented script or prior generation failures is asserted. No Copilot edit is made.
efraespada commentedon Nov 2, 2026
Repeated native publication on Domus issue25: first commit171244421fcc6289180bdb94bf4e7bb52a990a1b publishes specs/household-administration-workspace.md with a Definition of Done at line372 requiring
pnpm run validate:specifications. Immutable source: https://github.com/vypdev/domus/blob/171244421fcc6289180bdb94bf4e7bb52a990a1b/specs/household-administration-workspace.md#L372 . The selected parent is actual PR24 merge6d84d4815a8bbfe071979df6650d01e433dcc2db. Actual package.json at that parent and current branch has no such script; the existing verification is the unchanged pinned SDK format/consistency/catalog validation. The ordinary supplied proposal already named that real outcome, but which hidden generation inputs were read is not inferred.Domus corrects only its own generated companion and actual implementation-path declarations, retaining19 owner documents, all72 administration cases and8 integration refinements. Original SDK policy modules remain byte-verified. No Copilot source/configuration/workflow/limits/credentials changed. Native publication is not proof of executable verification instructions or complete workspace acceptance. Please retain this immutable repeat under the existing source-grounding regression.
efraespada commentedon Nov 3, 2026
A new native publication reproduces this content defect on the same unchanged Copilot revision, and adds a second nonexistent command.
vypdev/copilot@v3, SHA3e7ceea08e6131360e026937d1c0cc1b120472e0(the job explicitly logs that resolution).8b1cbc110c389b9cdb6ecd11317c95abf2c4b0a9.91adfe902055cb2c5bb42ceeb57c2b7ab53fb635, parent exactly that base. The only changed files are the new companion and the two catalogs; the three existing recurrence owners remain byte-identical.The published section 15, line 328 instructs contributors to run both
pnpm run validate:specificationsandpnpm run generate:specifications. Definition of Done, line 384 repeats the first as a required gate. Neither script exists in the exact selected package.json.I independently verified that the selected package bytes match the actual consumer checkout, checked both script keys are absent, and executed both literal instructions with the already-installed Node 24.20.0/pnpm 10.34.0. Both exit 1 before any generation:
No missing script, compatibility shim, generated file, Copilot resource, workflow, cache source, model or bound was added to make the instructions pass. The consumer correction will use real repository documentation checks (
uv run domus-check docs) and describe original-SDK format/consistency/catalog outcomes accurately; native validation remains a separate requirement.An additional semantic observation from this same publication is relevant to preserving the owner's input, without asserting a shared internal cause. The issue supplied a complete 20-section proposal with 18 independently refined protocol/storage cases and 95 explicitly checked prospective path operations. The publisher produced 18 broader cases and only 15 path rows instead. Several nominally new cases restate the retained owner: published C01 duplicates retained recurrence-execution-C06's initial-work boundary, C03 restates C29's local-day anchoring, and C07 restates C17/C18/C19's writer/rollback/restart journey. Their specific supplied refinements (restored bootstrap absence, final source-scan unit with duplicate lookahead, cross-generation closed-cycle replay, independent high-revision journals, genuine-9 late-migration failure) are not preserved as those explicit inventory rows. The published text still calls its 18 rows new distinct cases. Structural/reciprocal validity alone does not establish that they are new independent journeys or that the supplied refinements were retained.
Consumer recovery is to preserve the published broad references as non-counted aliases to retained owners, restore the concrete independent refinement inventory and actual prospective paths on the admitted consumer branch, and keep every original case required. No implementation or whole-feature acceptance is inferred from successful publication, derived tables, test totals or lifecycle labels.
Suggested regression coverage: verify literal project commands against the exact selected snapshot; reject or explicitly qualify unknown scripts; preserve supplied independent case assertions and future-path declarations when regenerating a companion; and distinguish aliases to retained journeys from new counted cases. Existing valid commands and original native gates must remain supported.
[-]🐛 - Published consumer SDD requires a nonexistent repository verification script[/-][+]🐛🧑💻 - Published consumer SDD requires a nonexistent repository verification script[/+]vypbot commentedon Nov 4, 2026
Implementation plan
Acceptance: Regression tests demonstrate that generated SDD guidance uses a command present in the selected snapshot, and uses an explicit validation outcome without an invented command when the command is absent or source evidence is unknown or conflicting.
Need something else? Mention the bot with a question or use
/copilot help.vypbot commentedon Nov 4, 2026
Progress: 75% — in progress
Next: [R3] Suggested regression scope: real selected script, absent script, package-manager mismatch, conflicting default-versus-selected snapshots, unknown source, and a valid generic validation outcome without an invented command. Preserve the full owning product/case inventories and publication validation. — Independent evidence is needed that the complete required regression scope, including conflicting snapshots and preservation of full owning inventories and publication validation, passes.