Skip to content

docs(memory): specify branch heads and handoff checkpoint refs (#356) - #373

Closed
sun-970 wants to merge 2 commits into
bytefolk:mainfrom
sun-970:docs/356-branch-heads-handoff
Closed

sun-970 wants to merge 2 commits into
bytefolk:mainfrom
sun-970:docs/356-branch-heads-handoff

Conversation

@sun-970

@sun-970 sun-970 commented Sep 18, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Tracking record

Refs #356

Summary

Design-only RW-3: per-agent branch heads, required merge records, handoff packages carry checkpoint + receipt refs (not leftover grants or transcripts). Agent B cannot silently overwrite Agent A’s checkpoint. Successor permissions re-evaluated at recall (#328).

No runtime. Blocked on Gate D0 and DE-2.

Acceptance criteria

Acceptance criterion Status Evidence
AC-001 B cannot silently overwrite A’s checkpoint Met (design) docs/design/memory-branch-handoff-v1.md
AC-002 handoff carries refs, not leftover grants Met (design) same
AC-003 merge record required Met (design) same
AC-004 blocked on D0 and DE-2 Met no runtime

Validation ledger

Command or check Expected Actual
Runtime tests N/A NOT VERIFIED — design-only

asteam-worker added 2 commits September 18, 2026 15:17

@waterbro-8 waterbro-8 left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Review — Comment

Head 75aed3e3。B 不能改 A 的 head;merge 出新 segment + 记录,不原地覆盖;handoff 只带 successor 已有 grant 的 checkpoint/receipt refs,不带 leftover grants / 私有 memoryId。和 #364/#328 一致。示例 digest 已标明 illustrative。design-only,等 D0 + DE-2。非 CODEOWNER。

@PeterGuy326 PeterGuy326 left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Reviewed head-to-tail. Design-only doc, no runtime. Branch heads are per-hire, cross-hire head writes are rejected, merges create new segments plus a merge record instead of clobbering, and the handoff package carries only refs the successor can already read (no leftover grants, no foreign private memoryIds). Digests are explicitly illustrative. Consistent with #364 and #328 re-evaluation-at-recall. One cosmetic note: the AC sections appear in order AC-001, AC-003, AC-002 in the file; harmless.

@PeterGuy326

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Content merged to main via #381 (in-repo recreation, rebase merge, commit authored as @sun-970). Closing because fork pull requests cannot satisfy the required CodeQL check name in branch protection on this repository. Original review history preserved here.

@PeterGuy326

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@sun-970 Summary for your six memory-plane PRs (#364, #369, #370, #371, #372, #373): all were reviewed, approved, and merged to main via in-repo recreations #375, #377, #378, #379, #380, #381 — file blobs byte-identical to your fork heads, commits authored as you, all required checks green before each merge. The originals were closed because fork pull requests cannot satisfy the required CodeQL check name in branch protection on this repository (structural: every merge in this repo's history used an in-repo branch). Nothing needs fixing on your side — your design docs are all on main. Going forward, please push branches directly to bytefolk/roleweave and open PRs from there (same as you did for #342/#343) so they can go through the normal protection checks.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants