coilyco-flight-deck/agentic-os

Fork 0

docs(o11y): retarget tool-failure shipper docs around ward-owned producers #393

New issue

Closed

opened 2026-07-09 21:37:29 +00:00 by coilyco-ops · 3 comments

coilyco-ops commented

2026-07-09 21:37:29 +00:00

Member

Depends on coilyco-flight-deck/ward re-homing producer logic into the embedded fleet.

Why this follow-up exists

agentic-os still contains the shared, tested GlitchTip shipper added on 2026-07-04 (e386997), but its surrounding docs still describe a world where the producers were local agentic-os runtime surfaces. Those producers were removed on 2026-06-26 by 03d1525.

If ward becomes the modern producer owner, agentic-os should say so plainly.

Scope

After the ward producer issue lands or at least settles the contract:

Update docs/tool-failures-shipper.md, docs/FEATURES.md, and any nearby references so they describe the shipper as consuming records from ward-owned producers rather than from removed in-repo surfaces.
Decide whether agentic-os remains the canonical schema-v1 documentation owner or whether the schema should move to ward with agentic-os linking out.
Keep the current shipper in place unless the ward implementation found a real reason to move it.
Optionally note the activation sequencing: GlitchTip project + /sentry-dsn/tool-failures should happen when the first ward producer is close to landing, so the project is not dark indefinitely.

Explicit downstream/upstream relationship

This is downstream of the ward issue because the docs should describe the producer owner that actually exists, not speculate ahead of the implementation.

Done looks like

agentic-os no longer implies the removed goose_json.ask / Claude drain surfaces still live here.
The shipper docs correctly describe the new repo boundary.
The schema/ownership story is explicit enough that future producers do not fork the contract by accident.

Filed by ward agent advisor cross-repo fan-out from coilyco-flight-deck/agentic-os#326 (part 2 of 2, ward#424). Upstream dependency: coilyco-flight-deck/ward#871.

— Codex, via ward agent

Depends on `coilyco-flight-deck/ward` re-homing producer logic into the embedded fleet. ## Why this follow-up exists `agentic-os` still contains the shared, tested GlitchTip shipper added on **2026-07-04** (`e386997`), but its surrounding docs still describe a world where the producers were local `agentic-os` runtime surfaces. Those producers were removed on **2026-06-26** by `03d1525`. If `ward` becomes the modern producer owner, `agentic-os` should say so plainly. ## Scope After the `ward` producer issue lands or at least settles the contract: 1. Update `docs/tool-failures-shipper.md`, `docs/FEATURES.md`, and any nearby references so they describe the shipper as consuming records from **ward-owned producers** rather than from removed in-repo surfaces. 2. Decide whether `agentic-os` remains the **canonical schema-v1 documentation owner** or whether the schema should move to `ward` with `agentic-os` linking out. 3. Keep the current shipper in place unless the `ward` implementation found a real reason to move it. 4. Optionally note the activation sequencing: GlitchTip project + `/sentry-dsn/tool-failures` should happen when the first `ward` producer is close to landing, so the project is not dark indefinitely. ## Explicit downstream/upstream relationship This is **downstream of the `ward` issue** because the docs should describe the producer owner that actually exists, not speculate ahead of the implementation. ## Done looks like - `agentic-os` no longer implies the removed `goose_json.ask` / Claude drain surfaces still live here. - The shipper docs correctly describe the new repo boundary. - The schema/ownership story is explicit enough that future producers do not fork the contract by accident. --- Filed by `ward agent advisor` cross-repo fan-out from coilyco-flight-deck/agentic-os#326 (part 2 of 2, ward#424). Upstream dependency: coilyco-flight-deck/ward#871.  — Codex, via `ward agent`

coilyco-ops referenced this issue

2026-07-09 21:37:31 +00:00

feat(o11y): create GlitchTip project + populate /sentry-dsn/tool-failures; decide failure-record producer re-homing #326

coilyco-ops added the

consult

labels

2026-07-09 21:38:52 +00:00

coilysiren referenced this issue from coilyco-flight-deck/ward

2026-07-10 04:03:12 +00:00

ward release race condition #935

coilyco-ops added

interactive

and removed

consult

labels

2026-07-10 08:59:42 +00:00

coilyco-ops commented

2026-07-10 11:06:20 +00:00

Author

Member

WARD-DISPATCH: failed ❌

failure details

This forwarded dispatch failed after the issue was already reserved.

Attempted harness: codex
Attempted run: ward agent engineer coilyco-flight-deck/agentic-os#393 --harness codex --ward-version v0.580.0
Container: engineer-codex-agentic-os-393
Container created: no running engineer was observed.
Host log: /Users/kai/.ward/agent-logs/dispatch/20260710T110618Z-director-claude-sm47-coilyco-flight-deck-agentic-os-393.log
Failure: ward agent engineer --harness codex: refusing to dispatch the engineer role on coilyco-flight-deck/agentic-os#393: the issue is explicitly labeled interactive - remove that label or pass --force to override (consult/default issues dispatch normally)

Retry: choose another harness if the first one is down, or rerun with --force if the reservation is stale.

— Codex, via ward agent

WARD-DISPATCH: failed ❌ <details><summary>failure details</summary> This forwarded dispatch failed after the issue was already reserved. Attempted harness: `codex` Attempted run: `ward agent engineer coilyco-flight-deck/agentic-os#393 --harness codex --ward-version v0.580.0` Container: `engineer-codex-agentic-os-393` Container created: no running engineer was observed. Host log: `/Users/kai/.ward/agent-logs/dispatch/20260710T110618Z-director-claude-sm47-coilyco-flight-deck-agentic-os-393.log` Failure: `ward agent engineer --harness codex: refusing to dispatch the engineer role on coilyco-flight-deck/agentic-os#393: the issue is explicitly labeled interactive - remove that label or pass --force to override (consult/default issues dispatch normally)` Retry: choose another harness if the first one is down, or rerun with `--force` if the reservation is stale. </details>  — Codex, via `ward agent`

coilyco-ops commented

2026-07-10 11:17:34 +00:00

Author

Member

WARD-RESERVATION: held 🔒

reservation details

Holder: container engineer-codex-agentic-os-393 on host kais-macbook-pro-2.local.

Reserved by ward agent --harness codex (reserved 2026-07-10T11:17:33Z). Concurrent ward agent runs are blocked until it finishes or the reservation goes stale (1h TTL). --force overrides.

Do not comment on or edit this issue to steer the run while it is reserved. The engineer seeded the body once at launch and never re-reads it, so a comment or edit reaches only human readers, never the running engineer. A correction goes to a new issue, dispatched fresh. That is the only channel that reaches a run in flight. Where the forge supports it, ward locks this conversation to make that a road-block rather than a convention (ward#494).

run seed context — what this run is carrying (ward#609)

Resolved: coilyco-flight-deck/agentic-os#393 · branch issue-393 · harness codex · workflow pull-requests-and-merge
Run: engineer-codex-agentic-os-393 · ward v0.580.0 · dispatched 2026-07-10T11:17:33Z
Comment thread: 1 included in the pre-flight read, 0 stripped (ward's own automated comments).
- included: @coilyco-ops (2026-07-10T11:06:20Z)

Static container doctrine and seed boilerplate are identical every run and omitted here (they ride ward v0.580.0).

— Codex, via ward agent

WARD-RESERVATION: held 🔒 <details><summary>reservation details</summary> Holder: container `engineer-codex-agentic-os-393` on host `kais-macbook-pro-2.local`. Reserved by `ward agent --harness codex` (reserved 2026-07-10T11:17:33Z). Concurrent `ward agent` runs are blocked until it finishes or the reservation goes stale (1h TTL). `--force` overrides. **Do not comment on or edit this issue to steer the run while it is reserved.** The engineer seeded the body once at launch and never re-reads it, so a comment or edit reaches only human readers, never the running engineer. A correction goes to a **new issue, dispatched fresh**. That is the only channel that reaches a run in flight. Where the forge supports it, ward locks this conversation to make that a road-block rather than a convention (ward#494). <details><summary>run seed context — what this run is carrying (ward#609)</summary> - **Resolved:** `coilyco-flight-deck/agentic-os#393` · branch `issue-393` · harness `codex` · workflow `pull-requests-and-merge` - **Run:** `engineer-codex-agentic-os-393` · ward `v0.580.0` · dispatched `2026-07-10T11:17:33Z` - **Comment thread:** 1 included in the pre-flight read, 0 stripped (ward's own automated comments). - included: @coilyco-ops (2026-07-10T11:06:20Z) Static container doctrine and seed boilerplate are identical every run and omitted here (they ride ward v0.580.0). </details> </details>  — Codex, via `ward agent`

coilyco-ops referenced this issue from a pull request that will close it,

2026-07-10 11:21:06 +00:00

docs(o11y): retarget tool-failure shipper docs around ward-owned producers #440

coilyco-ops commented

2026-07-10 11:23:33 +00:00

Author

Member

WARD-OUTCOME: blocked 🛑

details

workflow: pull-requests-and-merge; review summary: review gate skipped by ~/.ward/config.yaml default

ci / gate (pull_request) failed before checkout on PR #440 for commit 575a9e6151.
The run resolved to run_id=6441 job_id=10657 and reported a setup-job failure after 0s with no step logs, so this looks like a Forgejo runner/setup problem rather than a repo-content regression.
Next step: rerun or inspect the Forgejo Actions runner/image path for the ci job.

— Codex, via `ward agent`

WARD-OUTCOME: blocked 🛑 <details><summary>details</summary> workflow: pull-requests-and-merge; review summary: review gate skipped by ~/.ward/config.yaml default ci / gate (pull_request) failed before checkout on PR #440 for commit 575a9e61513b10fe50668522f616ddcfef53b42f. The run resolved to run_id=6441 job_id=10657 and reported a setup-job failure after 0s with no step logs, so this looks like a Forgejo runner/setup problem rather than a repo-content regression. Next step: rerun or inspect the Forgejo Actions runner/image path for the ci job. </details>  — Codex, via `ward agent`

coilysiren closed this issue

2026-07-10 18:02:02 +00:00