Skip to content

Re-plan PR #1203 (Kimi harness) against converged main: security refusal for trust pre-write, delivery-path re-derivation, plan re-approval, verified-delivery measurement #1620

Description

@waleedkadous

Problem

PR #1203 (Mohid, "Support Kimi Code CLI as a builder", Spec/plan 1201) is complete and was reported green on 2026-08-09, then sat un-re-reviewed by maintainers for 26 days. Main moved underneath it (1,603 commits, CONFLICTING in 7 files), and three of its four core seams were rebuilt in that window. The 2026-09-04 3-way integration review (gemini APPROVE; codex + claude REQUEST_CHANGES, high confidence) found the design sound but the branch un-mergeable as-is. Owner decision 2026-09-04: maintainers execute the re-plan, building on Mohid's branch with his commits and authorship intact.

Scope (this lane)

Work on branch builder/pir-1201 (maintainerCanModify=true; gh pr checkout 1203). Never rebase or squash — merge origin/main in and add commits on top.

  1. Re-derive the delivery-path integration against converged main (semantic, not mechanical):
  2. Workspace-trust pre-write — security (verified; [Security] Committed workspace configuration can execute commands without trust or approval #1328 class): ensureKimiWorkspaceTrust must refuse (log why, let the dialog appear and the gate hold) when the worktree contains project-level MCP config (.mcp.json, .kimi-code/mcp.json). Additionally gate the pre-write behind an explicit .codev/config.json opt-in (e.g. harness.kimi.autoTrustWorkspace: true, default false) — document in the harness config docs. Test both refusals.
  3. Re-measure under verified delivery (tower: delivery write edge — verify-or-retry 'delivered', settle-before-write, loud size limit (silent-loss residuals of #1564/#1521) #1573/tower: HOTFIX — echo-verify re-write loop re-injects a delivered message unboundedly (3.3.2 regression from #1573; zero re-writes after a completed write) #1584): drive a real Kimi (≥0.33.0) session through the production paced write + echo verification and record what its composer/transcript does to the header (claude markdown-eats ###; Kimi is unmeasured). If Kimi cannot be verified, its profile must be configured so deliveries land delivered-unverified loudly, never a loop. Evidence into codev/evidence/.
  4. Update the plan to the shipped architecture (codev/plans/1201-*.md: mailbox task delivery, --agent-file role injection, guarded -c resume, trust record, version floor 0.33.0) → plan-approval gate. The approved artifact must describe the code.
  5. Live demo re-run against the current Kimi CLI (check its latest version; the branch was measured at 0.34.0 and it ships weekly) under the dev-approval gate, with the 7 scenarios from the original review doc.
  6. Keep the version floor at 0.33.0 (do not lower — unmeasured engine below it).

Out of scope (file as follow-ups, referencing #1203)

Acceptance

Refs: #1201 (spec), #1203 (PR), #1328 (security class), #1365, #1482, #1474, #1573, #1584, #1578.

Activity

  1. waleedkadous commented on Sep 4, 2026

    @waleedkadous
    ContributorAuthor

    On it! Working on this with the PIR protocol (plan + dev-approval gates before PR).

  2. added 18 commits that reference this issue on Sep 5, 2026
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    area/towerArea: Tower server / agent farm CLI

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

      Milestone

      No milestone

      Relationships

      None yet

      Development

      No branches or pull requests

      Issue actions