Reserved by ward agent --harness claude (reserved 2026-07-10T20:11:38Z). 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/ward#1047 · branch issue-1047 · harness claude · workflow pull-requests-and-merge
Run: engineer-claude-ward-1047 · ward v0.600.0 · dispatched 2026-07-10T20:11:38Z
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 v0.600.0).

— Claude (she/her), via ward agent

WARD-RESERVATION: held 🔒 <details><summary>reservation details</summary> Holder: container `engineer-claude-ward-1047` on host `kais-macbook-pro-2.local`. Reserved by `ward agent --harness claude` (reserved 2026-07-10T20:11:38Z). 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/ward#1047` · branch `issue-1047` · harness `claude` · workflow `pull-requests-and-merge` - **Run:** `engineer-claude-ward-1047` · ward `v0.600.0` · dispatched `2026-07-10T20:11:38Z` - **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 v0.600.0). </details> </details>  — Claude (she/her), via `ward agent`

coilyco-ops added 1 commit

2026-07-10 20:16:13 +00:00

Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/main' into issue-1039

test / test (pull_request) Successful in 30s

Details

bc76ec4062

Resolve the configsource.go doc-comment conflict by keeping main's
post-ward#1009 wording; the branch keeps only its consumer-code change.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

coilyco-ops merged commit 34a15babef into main

2026-07-10 20:20:37 +00:00

coilyco-ops referenced this pull request from a commit

2026-07-10 20:20:38 +00:00

Merge pull request 'Report Codex residual commits that produce no PR or outcome' (#1047) from issue-1039 into main

coilyco-ops commented

2026-07-10 20:22:51 +00:00

Author

Member

WARD-OUTCOME: submitted

details

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

The in-container review gate was intentionally skipped because review gate skipped by ~/.ward/config.yaml default.

What landed. Repaired the existing PR #1047 branch (issue-1039) per the operator note: merged current main into the branch and resolved the one conflict (cmd/ward/configsource.go) by keeping main's post-ward#1009 doc-comment wording, so the branch carries only its consumer-code change (WARD-OUTCOME salvage lines in container_reap_compute.go, archive outcome marker in agent_logs.go, plus their tests). No .ward/ward-kdl/ file was restored or recreated - the branch and main .ward/ trees were verified identical before committing the merge. ward exec test, build, vet, lint all green. PR checks green (test / test success on head bc76ec40), then landed via ward agent pr merge under the engineer x pull-requests-and-merge grant (ward#1067); merged-state check confirmed, issue #1039 auto-closed, and both post-merge main runs (test.yml 6854, release.yml 6853) finished success.

Retro. Felt clean once oriented: the repair was one comment-block conflict, not the three-file fight the note anticipated - main had already converged on the other two files. One flaky first ward exec test run (a transient git-clone failure inside TestSyncGitRef*) passed on every rerun, uncached. The only real decision was the finisher: the dispatch text says merge-ready in one paragraph and submitted in another, and the repo's own d1d4caac normalization (skipped review => submitted) plus the engineer self-merge grant resolved it - self-merge, then report submitted. Confidence: high. Follow-ups: none.

WARD-OUTCOME: submitted <details><summary>details</summary> workflow: pull-request-and-merge; review summary: review gate skipped by ~/.ward/config.yaml default The in-container review gate was intentionally skipped because review gate skipped by ~/.ward/config.yaml default. **What landed.** Repaired the existing PR #1047 branch (`issue-1039`) per the operator note: merged current `main` into the branch and resolved the one conflict (`cmd/ward/configsource.go`) by keeping main's post-ward#1009 doc-comment wording, so the branch carries only its consumer-code change (WARD-OUTCOME salvage lines in `container_reap_compute.go`, archive outcome marker in `agent_logs.go`, plus their tests). No `.ward/ward-kdl/` file was restored or recreated - the branch and main `.ward/` trees were verified identical before committing the merge. `ward exec test`, `build`, `vet`, `lint` all green. PR checks green (`test / test` success on head `bc76ec40`), then landed via `ward agent pr merge` under the engineer x pull-requests-and-merge grant (ward#1067); merged-state check confirmed, issue #1039 auto-closed, and both post-merge main runs (test.yml 6854, release.yml 6853) finished success. **Retro.** Felt clean once oriented: the repair was one comment-block conflict, not the three-file fight the note anticipated - main had already converged on the other two files. One flaky first `ward exec test` run (a transient git-clone failure inside `TestSyncGitRef*`) passed on every rerun, uncached. The only real decision was the finisher: the dispatch text says merge-ready in one paragraph and submitted in another, and the repo's own d1d4caac normalization (skipped review => submitted) plus the engineer self-merge grant resolved it - self-merge, then report submitted. Confidence: high. Follow-ups: none. </details>