Document the cli-guard build-time dependency for external self-builders #641

New issue

Closed

opened 2026-07-07 21:47:17 +00:00 by coilyco-ops · 2 comments

coilyco-ops commented

2026-07-07 21:47:17 +00:00

Member

Parent epic: #633. Depends on: none.

Context. go.mod pins forgejo.coilysiren.me/coilyco-flight-deck/cli-guard. Anyone building ward from source needs that Forgejo host reachable and that repo public, or a sibling checkout via make workspace (see docs/workspace.md). This is fine, but it is currently undocumented for an outside builder and will read as a surprise failure when a go build reaches out to an unfamiliar host.

Proposed change.

Add a short "Building from source" note to the README (and/or the install docs) stating the cli-guard module dependency, that it resolves from forgejo.coilysiren.me, and the make workspace path for local development.

Acceptance criteria.

README/install docs name the cli-guard dependency and both resolution paths.
The note is discoverable from the Install section, not buried.

Milestone: ward launch. Filed from the read-only director surface (she/her), part of the release-readiness issue batch.

Parent epic: #633. **Depends on:** none. **Context.** `go.mod` pins `forgejo.coilysiren.me/coilyco-flight-deck/cli-guard`. Anyone building ward from source needs that Forgejo host reachable and that repo public, or a sibling checkout via `make workspace` (see `docs/workspace.md`). This is fine, but it is currently undocumented for an outside builder and will read as a surprise failure when a `go build` reaches out to an unfamiliar host. **Proposed change.** - Add a short "Building from source" note to the README (and/or the install docs) stating the cli-guard module dependency, that it resolves from forgejo.coilysiren.me, and the `make workspace` path for local development. **Acceptance criteria.** - README/install docs name the cli-guard dependency and both resolution paths. - The note is discoverable from the Install section, not buried. --- Milestone: ward launch. Filed from the read-only director surface (she/her), part of the release-readiness issue batch.

coilyco-ops added this to the ward launch milestone

2026-07-07 21:47:17 +00:00

coilyco-ops added the

label

2026-07-07 21:47:17 +00:00

coilyco-ops referenced this issue

2026-07-07 21:48:40 +00:00

[epic] Release readiness = running ward on foreign stacks (split-stack: git host + tracker) #633

coilyco-ops commented

2026-07-09 17:39:00 +00:00

Author

Member

WARD-RESERVATION: held 🔒

reservation details

Holder: container engineer-codex-ward-641 on host kais-macbook-pro-2.local.

Reserved by ward agent --harness codex (reserved 2026-07-09T17:38:58Z). 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/ward#641 · branch issue-641 · harness codex · workflow pull-request-and-merge
Run: engineer-codex-ward-641 · ward v0.493.0 · dispatched 2026-07-09T17:38:58Z
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-ward-641` on host `kais-macbook-pro-2.local`. Reserved by `ward agent --harness codex` (reserved 2026-07-09T17:38:58Z). 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/ward#641` · branch `issue-641` · harness `codex` · workflow `pull-request-and-merge` - **Run:** `engineer-codex-ward-641` · ward `v0.493.0` · dispatched `2026-07-09T17:38:58Z` - **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 issue from a commit

2026-07-09 17:41:07 +00:00

docs: add source build note for cli-guard

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

2026-07-09 17:41:28 +00:00

docs: add source build note for cli-guard #826

coilyco-ops closed this issue

2026-07-09 17:42:15 +00:00

coilyco-ops commented

2026-07-09 17:42:44 +00:00

Author

Member

WARD-OUTCOME: done ✅

details

workflow: pull-request-and-merge; review summary: review gate skipped by --skip-review / --no-review-gate

Retrospective: the docs-only change was straightforward. Confidence: high. Surprise: none beyond the PR merge API being the simple do=merge shape used in-tree. Follow-ups: none.

WARD-OUTCOME: done ✅ <details><summary>details</summary> workflow: pull-request-and-merge; review summary: review gate skipped by --skip-review / --no-review-gate Retrospective: the docs-only change was straightforward. Confidence: high. Surprise: none beyond the PR merge API being the simple `do=merge` shape used in-tree. Follow-ups: none. </details>