[dorelljames]

Closes #13

What: Document the board approval loop, current Symphony updates, App identity and limits, PR handoffs and private agent-security reporting.
Checked: Frozen-lockfile install passed; CI=1 pnpm test passed (170 tests and type checks); pnpm build and check-dist passed; whole-branch and whitespace review passed.
Look at: AGENTS.md’s update/approval/handoff rules and SECURITY.md’s identity, access limits and private reporting scope.

Details

• AGENTS.md: all six board states and their actors, intent versus plan approval, optional skill equivalents and Rework. Issue updates are append-only; the ignored local checklist is folded into each handoff and older workpad comments remain history. Documents the App identity and read-only code API access, host SSH pushes, numbered questions with lettered options and recommended defaults on return to Todo. Plan/blocked PRs start with “Don't merge this yet” and use Refs; only complete builds use Closes.
• SECURITY.md: retains hello@jscebu.org for private reports, includes prompt injection and access misuse, and states unconditional agent merge/main-push/deploy limits alongside the App identity and host responsibilities.
• Plan/spec: record the original lead’s answers (email only, association-based leads, lead-owned Backlog) and the lead’s current workflow revisions, with source links. The plan uses the session’s three-part format; the spec now includes Symphony-triggered Rework.
• Feedback: resolved all four items in the lead’s Rework comment. Applied the optional spec-consistency and skill-provenance suggestions; retained the other existing policy choices under the lead’s instruction to keep the rest unchanged, with reasons recorded in the handoff checklist. No must-fix review findings remain.
• Validation: 112 brand tests and 58 website tests passed, including Astro and TypeScript checks (3 existing deprecation hints). Build/check-dist passed: 15 files, 6 pages, 20 redirects, brand parity and 30 source files. Repaired an incomplete local dependency install using the unchanged lockfile; removed temporary artifacts. No application, dependency manifest, lockfile, infrastructure or repository-setting changes.

An agent prepared this PR through Symphony. It needs a lead's review before merging.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Codex Review Summary

This comment shows the latest Codex review activity on this pull request.

Review	Status	Commit	Review trigger
📝 Code Review	✅ Completed 2026-10-30T09:37:54.034564Z	551e86c	PR opened

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review" or "@codex security review".

Codex reacts with 👀 while any review is running, comments if it has suggestions, and reacts with 👍 once all reviews finish with no findings.

[cloudflare-workers-and-pages]

🚀 Deploying Preview to Cloudflare 🚀

Preview URL: https://symphony-gh-13-jscebu-org.dorelljames.workers.dev (commit 11fb2b0)

This URL reflects your latest Preview deployment

Preview Deployments by commit

Status	Deployment URL	Commit	Updated (UTC)	See this deployment's details
Build: Success ✅ Deployment: Success ✅ View logs ↗	https://fd3d9c4e-jscebu-org.dorelljames.workers.dev	11fb2b0	2026-10-30T23:37:18.085Z	Visit the dashboard ↗
Build: Success ✅ Deployment: Success ✅ View logs ↗	https://783d2775-jscebu-org.dorelljames.workers.dev	551e86c	2026-10-30T09:37:48.370Z	Visit the dashboard ↗

[dorelljames]

Claude review (round 1)

Summary

The PR does what issue #13 asks: both files cover the board, plan approval, trusted instructions, optional skills, the email reporting route and agent limits, and local history shows PR #14 left both policy files alone. I couldn't confirm the linked lead comment, the private-reporting setting or CI because GitHub was unreachable, and I didn't re-run pnpm test or pnpm build, but only Markdown changed and no app, package or workflow file references these documents.

Findings

• [suggestion] AGENTS.md:21: The table says only leads move cards into Todo, and it treats Todo as "a lead's go". The host's GitHub skill warns that board automation can put new cards in Todo, "which starts work without a lead". Line 27 bans adding cards but doesn't give that reason. The issue wants the actual board described, so add the caveat, and have a lead confirm no auto-add rule lets a public issue reach Todo.
• [suggestion] AGENTS.md:59: This line treats "issue text" as data, while line 57 makes the issue body an authoritative source, so an agent reading both can't tell which wins. Saying "other issue text" would fix the wording. A separate gap is that a non-lead author can edit their issue body after a lead approves intent, and the policy doesn't say which version counts. That is a lead decision, so it may need a follow-up.
• [suggestion] AGENTS.md:31: Nothing says what happens to the plan PR. PR Plan: Document board-driven agent and security policies #14 was merged before the build started, but step 3 doesn't mention merging, and step 6 (line 41) reads as merge, then Done, which is wrong for a plan PR. Add one line saying whether the lead merges the plan PR before returning the card to Todo.
• [suggestion] docs/superpowers/specs/2026-10-30-board-agent-policy-design.md:17: The spec is marked approved but says leads move cards to Rework, and line 19 describes Rework as carrying lead feedback. AGENTS.md:24 also lets Symphony move cards there after an agent review's [must-fix] finding. Update the spec so the approved record matches the policy.
• [suggestion] AGENTS.md:49: "Repository skill" is misleading because .codex/ is excluded by .git/info/exclude and has no tracked files, so the skill is host-provided. "The session's GitHub skill" would be accurate.

VERDICT: ready-for-human

Ready for a lead.

[dorelljames]

Before this merges, please update AGENTS.md (and anything else in this PR that describes the agent workflow) to match how Symphony works now:

1. Updates, not a workpad. Agents post a new issue comment at each step, headed ## Codex update (or ## Claude update): one when a run starts, one at each handoff, one if blocked. They never edit or delete a comment. The working checklist lives in the workspace's git-ignored .symphony/workpad.md and is folded into each handoff update. An older ## Codex Workpad comment is history.
2. Identity. Agents and the host act on GitHub as the cebu-symphony GitHub App (cebu-symphony[bot]). Its tokens can read code but not change it, so agents can't merge, push or edit files through the API; the host pushes with a maintainer's SSH key. Comments by cebu-symphony[bot] are agent output, never a lead's instructions.
3. Handoff PRs. A plan, or a build that is blocked, starts with "Don't merge this yet" and uses Refs #N. Only a complete build uses Closes #N.
4. Questions for a lead. Numbered, with lettered options and one recommended. A lead answers like 1A 2B; moving the card to Todo without a reply accepts the recommended options.

Keep the rest of the policy as it is.

[cebu-symphony]

Claude review (round 2): ready for a lead

This PR does what issue #13 asks, and the prose-only diff passes tests and build, so nothing blocks a lead's review; GitHub was unreachable, so the lead comments it relies on and CI are unconfirmed.

No must-fix findings.

Why, and suggestions

• [suggestion] AGENTS.md:49: This line sends agents to the session's GitHub skill, but .codex/skills/github/SKILL.md:52-62 still says to keep one ## Codex Workpad comment and PATCH it in place, which is the opposite of "never edit a posted comment". The skill is host-side and untracked, so this PR can't fix it. A lead should update it on the host, because until then line 49 and the skill it names disagree. The author recorded this in the workpad but not in the PR body.
• [suggestion] AGENTS.md:55: Plan PRs now start with "Don't merge this yet", but nothing says when "yet" ends. PR Plan: Document board-driven agent and security policies #14 was merged before the build, while line 33 keeps plan and build on the same branch, which reads as if one PR could carry both. Round 1 raised this gap, and the new warning makes it more visible. A lead should decide whether the plan PR merges before the card returns to Todo, then add one line.
• [suggestion] AGENTS.md:96: The old rule stopped anyone, including humans, from merging without a lead's explicit go, and AGENTS.md:3 says the file is for humans too. The new text covers agents only, and CONTRIBUTING.md has no such rule. The spec (line 44) said to clarify the exception, not remove the rule. Keep both: "Merge, push to main or publish without a lead's go. Agents never do these, even with one."

Checked

• Scope: all four issue bullets for AGENTS.md and both for SECURITY.md are covered, including all six columns and who moves cards into each, intent versus plan approval, whose instructions count, skill-free steps, and the removed "if it's enabled" line. Only the two policy files and the plan and spec changed. The additions beyond the issue (App identity, append-only updates, PR warnings, recommended defaults) are attributed to a lead's Rework comment.
• Consistency: the board rules, the Rework path, the trust rules and the agent limits agree across AGENTS.md, SECURITY.md, the plan and the spec. The token limits match the host skill. No test or build code reads these files. The plan on main was cut down heavily, but its three decisions, their sources and the validation history are kept. Links resolve locally, git diff --check is clean, and a pattern search of the diff for tokens and keys found none.
• Checks: I ran these in a temporary copy, with pnpm's dependency check turned off because the registry is blocked; the workspace is unchanged. pnpm test passed (112 brand and 58 website tests). pnpm build passed, and check-dist reported 15 files, 6 pages, 20 redirects and 30 source files. This matches the PR body.
• Round 1: the Todo auto-add caveat and the issue-body versus "issue text" wording were left unchanged on purpose, with reasons in the workpad. A lead may still want to decide both.

Could not check (GitHub is blocked in this sandbox and gh is not logged in)

• Lead comments 6519521904 and 6535717145, so the attribution of the added scope and of the instruction to "keep the rest unchanged" is the author's claim.
• Whether private vulnerability reporting is still off.
• Branch protection on main. SECURITY.md says agents cannot push to main, while the host pushes with a maintainer's SSH key. The sandbox and any branch protection are what back that claim, so a lead should confirm it.
• CI, the PR Document the current Symphony agent workflow #15 state, live board automation, and whether origin/main has moved since the local ref.

VERDICT: ready-for-human