3 Commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
Marcos f59b906395 chore: scrub private infrastructure for a public repo, rewrite README
Audited the working tree and all 26 commits of history for credentials: none
found. No API keys, no private keys, no tokens — the live bot token, webhook
secret and admin token appear nowhere in the repo or its history.

What was there was infrastructure disclosure, which is recon material rather
than a leak, but has no business in a public repo:

- Tailnet addresses and cluster-internal hostnames in code, docs and the CI
  template. The model endpoint is now supplied at runtime via
  PRAGENT_MODEL_BASE_URL and patched into opencode.json by install_config();
  the committed config carries a placeholder, guarded by a test.
- A host path (/home/marcos) as the default rtk directory — now unset.
- Real usernames in the onboarding docs — now alice/acme.
- A standing list of one-time setup tokens that were never revoked, named
  individually. Removed. Note that removing the list does not revoke the
  tokens: they should still be revoked in the Gitea admin UI.

The substitution happens in Python rather than via opencode's {env:VAR} config
templating, because the reviewer subprocess runs with an allow-listed
environment — resolving it before the process starts keeps that allow-list from
having to grow.

README rewritten for a reader who has never seen the project: what it does and
what that output looks like, honest status (pilot works, framework designed but
unbuilt), the security model up front given what this thing is, and the measured
cost numbers including the two effects that make naive estimates wrong.

History still contains the old addresses. They are tailnet-only and not
credentials, so no rewrite.

Tests: 131 -> 137.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01B11e8TZZxJyzHW7jj7KWUN
2026-08-18 12:59:52 +00:00
Marcos 8a4239a9d9 docs: rework design after prior-art review
Red Hat's MIT ai-code-review already implements phases 1-2 (four forge clients,
six providers, CI integration, repo context file). Adds a research writeup,
inserts Phase 0 (evaluate it before building), and folds in seven requirements
the original design missed — chiefly prior-comment synthesis, without which our
own 1.7-runs-per-PR assumption means every push re-posts dismissed findings.

Amends implementation tasks 4, 5, 6, 9, 10 and gates the subagent briefs.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_011Ye1KNFMkkUtmzTypHXkoK
2026-08-04 17:27:15 +00:00
Marcos 8d690f5717 docs: add subagent dispatch briefs for phase 1
Per-task briefs a cold subagent can execute without conversation history:
objective, deliverables, constraints, done criteria, likely failure modes.
Adds orchestrator instructions (dependency graph, model tiers, dispatch loop,
stopping conditions), a shared context block, a review gate checklist, and
notes for running the plan on a non-Claude model.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_011Ye1KNFMkkUtmzTypHXkoK
2026-08-04 17:21:17 +00:00