Reserved by ward agent --harness codex (reserved 2026-07-09T16:07:58Z). 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#374 · branch issue-374 · harness codex · workflow pull-request-and-merge
Run: engineer-codex-agentic-os-374 · ward v0.493.0 · dispatched 2026-07-09T16:07:58Z
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 v0.493.0).

— Codex, via ward agent

WARD-RESERVATION: held 🔒 <details><summary>reservation details</summary> Holder: container `engineer-codex-agentic-os-374` on host `kais-macbook-pro-2.local`. Reserved by `ward agent --harness codex` (reserved 2026-07-09T16:07:58Z). 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#374` · branch `issue-374` · harness `codex` · workflow `pull-request-and-merge` - **Run:** `engineer-codex-agentic-os-374` · ward `v0.493.0` · dispatched `2026-07-09T16:07:58Z` - **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 v0.493.0). </details> </details>  — Codex, via `ward agent`

coilyco-ops referenced this pull request from a commit

2026-07-09 16:16:31 +00:00

Merge pull request 'fix: make dev-base substrate seed canonical' (#374) from issue-805 into main

coilyco-ops added 1 commit

2026-07-09 16:16:32 +00:00

Merge pull request 'fix: make dev-base substrate seed canonical' (#374 ) from issue-805 into main c753c13678

Reviewed-on: #374

coilyco-ops merged commit 454ba98b5a into main

2026-07-09 16:18:45 +00:00

coilyco-ops referenced this pull request from a commit

2026-07-09 16:18:47 +00:00

Merge pull request 'fix: make dev-base substrate seed canonical' (#374) from issue-805 into main

coilyco-ops commented

2026-07-09 16:23:21 +00:00

Author

Member

WARD-OUTCOME: blocked 🛑

details

workflow: pull-request-and-merge; review summary: skipped (review gate skipped by --skip-review / --no-review-gate) The merge itself felt routine, but the post-merge release path stopped on `publish-image` after `release` succeeded. Confidence: medium. Surprise: the branch merge landed cleanly, but Forgejo still reported the image job failure and the job page needed sign-in for logs. Follow-up: inspect the `publish-image` log or rerun that workflow once the underlying failure is identified.

WARD-OUTCOME: blocked 🛑 <details><summary>details</summary> workflow: pull-request-and-merge; review summary: skipped (review gate skipped by --skip-review / --no-review-gate) The merge itself felt routine, but the post-merge release path stopped on `publish-image` after `release` succeeded. Confidence: medium. Surprise: the branch merge landed cleanly, but Forgejo still reported the image job failure and the job page needed sign-in for logs. Follow-up: inspect the `publish-image` log or rerun that workflow once the underlying failure is identified. </details>