Director automatic triage on startup doesn't post a comment with its reasoning

Consult interrogation: this is now headless-ready. The issue has a concrete implementation target and acceptance criteria, with no remaining human decision needed before an engineer can carry it.

coilyco-ops commented

2026-07-09 18:30:32 +00:00

Member

WARD-RESERVATION: held 🔒

reservation details

Holder: container engineer-codex-ward-496 on host kais-macbook-pro-2.local.

Reserved by ward agent --harness codex (reserved 2026-07-09T18:30:29Z). 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#496 · branch issue-496 · harness codex · workflow pull-request
Run: engineer-codex-ward-496 · ward v0.493.0 · dispatched 2026-07-09T18:30:29Z
Comment thread: 1 included in the pre-flight read, 0 stripped (ward's own automated comments).
- included: @coilyco-ops (2026-07-09T18:25:09Z)

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-ward-496` on host `kais-macbook-pro-2.local`. Reserved by `ward agent --harness codex` (reserved 2026-07-09T18:30:29Z). 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#496` · branch `issue-496` · harness `codex` · workflow `pull-request` - **Run:** `engineer-codex-ward-496` · ward `v0.493.0` · dispatched `2026-07-09T18:30:29Z` - **Comment thread:** 1 included in the pre-flight read, 0 stripped (ward's own automated comments). - included: @coilyco-ops (2026-07-09T18:25:09Z) 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 issue from a pull request that will close it,

2026-07-09 18:38:44 +00:00

feat: post startup triage reasoning comments #850

coilyco-ops commented

2026-07-09 18:40:02 +00:00

Member

WARD-OUTCOME: done ✅

details

workflow: pull-request; review summary: review gate skipped by ~/.ward/config.yaml default
implementation felt: plumbing-heavy but direct
confidence: high
surprises: Forgejo PR creation had to go through the API because ward does not surface a create leaf
follow-ups: none

WARD-OUTCOME: done ✅ <details><summary>details</summary> workflow: pull-request; review summary: review gate skipped by ~/.ward/config.yaml default implementation felt: plumbing-heavy but direct confidence: high surprises: Forgejo PR creation had to go through the API because ward does not surface a create leaf follow-ups: none </details>

coilyco-ops commented

2026-07-09 20:12:36 +00:00

Member

WARD-RESERVATION: held 🔒

reservation details

Holder: container engineer-codex-ward-496 on host kais-macbook-pro-2.local.

Reserved by ward agent --harness codex (reserved 2026-07-09T20:12:34Z). 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#496 · branch issue-496 · harness codex · workflow direct-to-main
Run: engineer-codex-ward-496 · ward v0.522.0 · dispatched 2026-07-09T20:12:34Z
Comment thread: 2 included in the pre-flight read, 1 stripped (ward's own automated comments).
- included: @coilyco-ops (2026-07-09T18:25:09Z), @coilyco-ops (2026-07-09T18:40:02Z)
- stripped: @coilyco-ops (2026-07-09T18:30:32Z)

Static container doctrine and seed boilerplate are identical every run and omitted here (they ride ward v0.522.0).

— Codex, via ward agent

WARD-RESERVATION: held 🔒 <details><summary>reservation details</summary> Holder: container `engineer-codex-ward-496` on host `kais-macbook-pro-2.local`. Reserved by `ward agent --harness codex` (reserved 2026-07-09T20:12:34Z). 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#496` · branch `issue-496` · harness `codex` · workflow `direct-to-main` - **Run:** `engineer-codex-ward-496` · ward `v0.522.0` · dispatched `2026-07-09T20:12:34Z` - **Comment thread:** 2 included in the pre-flight read, 1 stripped (ward's own automated comments). - included: @coilyco-ops (2026-07-09T18:25:09Z), @coilyco-ops (2026-07-09T18:40:02Z) - stripped: @coilyco-ops (2026-07-09T18:30:32Z) Static container doctrine and seed boilerplate are identical every run and omitted here (they ride ward v0.522.0). </details> </details>  — Codex, via `ward agent`

coilyco-ops referenced this issue from a commit

2026-07-09 20:25:08 +00:00

feat: land startup triage reasoning comments

coilyco-ops closed this issue

2026-07-09 20:25:09 +00:00

coilyco-ops commented

2026-07-09 20:25:33 +00:00

Member

WARD-OUTCOME: done

details

workflow: pull-request; review summary: skipped (in-container review gate was intentionally skipped because review gate skipped by ~/.ward/config.yaml default)
Retrospective: docs-heavy, one merge repair.
Confidence: high.
Surprises: origin/main moved mid-push.
Follow-ups: none.

WARD-OUTCOME: done <details><summary>details</summary> workflow: pull-request; review summary: skipped (in-container review gate was intentionally skipped because review gate skipped by ~/.ward/config.yaml default) Retrospective: docs-heavy, one merge repair. Confidence: high. Surprises: origin/main moved mid-push. Follow-ups: none. </details>

coilyco-ops referenced this issue

2026-07-09 20:27:38 +00:00

feat: post startup triage reasoning comments #850

coilyco-ops referenced this issue

2026-07-13 19:04:09 +00:00

Fix dispatch prelaunch reservation architecture #1188

coilysiren referenced this issue

2026-07-14 15:27:09 +00:00

director should emit colorized, space buffered, visually distinct messages about the categories of actions its performing on startup #1283

Rows
Columns

Director automatic triage on startup doesn't post a comment with its reasoning #496