Improve dev-base tier failure isolation and rerun ergonomics #595

New issue

Closed

opened 2026-07-15 13:18:43 +00:00 by coilyco-ops · 2 comments

coilyco-ops commented

2026-07-15 13:18:43 +00:00

Member

Context

During the July 15 release recovery, a single tier failure repeatedly obscured how much of the dev-base publish graph was healthy. The workflow now has better visible steps, but the release train still needs better failure isolation and rerun ergonomics for tier-specific failures.

Requested work

Review the dev-base publish dependency graph and identify where one tier failure blocks unrelated evidence.
Add or improve single-tier rerun ergonomics for the release branch, using workflow dispatch inputs or narrowly scoped jobs if that matches the repo pattern.
Preserve the release contract that the final release only proceeds after required images are available.
Keep this focused on failure isolation and rerunability. Do not add summarize-publish work.

Acceptance

A failed tier can be revalidated without redoing unrelated expensive work where the existing image/tag state is already sufficient.
Required image availability still gates release promotion.
The repo's normal validation path passes.

Context During the July 15 release recovery, a single tier failure repeatedly obscured how much of the dev-base publish graph was healthy. The workflow now has better visible steps, but the release train still needs better failure isolation and rerun ergonomics for tier-specific failures. Requested work * Review the dev-base publish dependency graph and identify where one tier failure blocks unrelated evidence. * Add or improve single-tier rerun ergonomics for the release branch, using workflow dispatch inputs or narrowly scoped jobs if that matches the repo pattern. * Preserve the release contract that the final release only proceeds after required images are available. * Keep this focused on failure isolation and rerunability. Do not add summarize-publish work. Acceptance * A failed tier can be revalidated without redoing unrelated expensive work where the existing image/tag state is already sufficient. * Required image availability still gates release promotion. * The repo's normal validation path passes.

coilyco-ops commented

2026-07-15 13:18:59 +00:00

Author

Member

WARDED_WORKFLOW: reservation-held

reservation details

Holder: launch intent for container engineer-codex-agentic-os-595 on host kais-macbook-pro-2.local.

Accepted by ward agent --harness codex (reserved 2026-07-15T13:18:57Z). Concurrent ward agent runs are blocked until this intent becomes visible or the intent is released. The stale-intent fallback is still TTL-bounded (3h TTL). --override-reservation 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#595 · branch issue-595 · harness codex · workflow pull-request-and-merge
Run: engineer-codex-agentic-os-595 · ward v0.697.0 · dispatched 2026-07-15T13:18:51Z
Comment thread: 0 included in the pre-flight read, 0 stripped (ward's own automated comments).

Static container doctrine and seed boilerplate are identical every run and omitted here (they ride ward v0.697.0).

— Codex, via ward agent

WARDED_WORKFLOW: reservation-held <details><summary>reservation details</summary> Holder: launch intent for container `engineer-codex-agentic-os-595` on host `kais-macbook-pro-2.local`. Accepted by `ward agent --harness codex` (reserved 2026-07-15T13:18:57Z). Concurrent `ward agent` runs are blocked until this intent becomes visible or the intent is released. The stale-intent fallback is still TTL-bounded (3h TTL). `--override-reservation` 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#595` · branch `issue-595` · harness `codex` · workflow `pull-request-and-merge` - **Run:** `engineer-codex-agentic-os-595` · ward `v0.697.0` · dispatched `2026-07-15T13:18:51Z` - **Comment thread:** 0 included in the pre-flight read, 0 stripped (ward's own automated comments). Static container doctrine and seed boilerplate are identical every run and omitted here (they ride ward v0.697.0). </details> </details>  — Codex, via `ward agent`

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

2026-07-15 13:27:30 +00:00

fix: tier-scoped release reruns #598

coilyco-ops commented

2026-07-15 13:29:49 +00:00

Author

Member

WARDED_WORKFLOW: #598

details

workflow: pull-request-and-merge; review summary: skipped

The review gate was intentionally skipped because the temporary ward default was pending brokered QA.
The implementation felt straightforward once the release finalizer was narrowed to the selected closure.
Confidence: high.
Surprises: the doc-cap guard forced the rerun note to move into the resume walkthrough and inventory pages.
Follow-ups: none beyond the director merge.

WARDED_WORKFLOW: https://forgejo.coilysiren.me/coilyco-flight-deck/agentic-os/pulls/598 <details><summary>details</summary> workflow: pull-request-and-merge; review summary: skipped The review gate was intentionally skipped because the temporary ward default was pending brokered QA. The implementation felt straightforward once the release finalizer was narrowed to the selected closure. Confidence: high. Surprises: the doc-cap guard forced the rerun note to move into the resume walkthrough and inventory pages. Follow-ups: none beyond the director merge. </details>

coilyco-ops closed this issue

2026-07-15 13:30:00 +00:00